Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Bedwellty Urban District Council Bill [Lords],

Read a Second Time, and committed.

Bognor Regis Urban District Council Bill [Lords],

To be read a Second time To-morrow.

Cornwall Electric Power Bill [Lords],

Kingston upon Hull Corporation Bill [Lords],

Read a Second Time, and committed.

Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Traction Bill [Lords],

To be read a Second time To-morrow.

Swansea and District Transport Bill [Lords],

Read a Second Time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

IRON AND STEEL (IMPORTS).

Mr. DAY: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India the amount of iron or steel imported into India during the financial year 1934–35 and used in connection with Government contracts; and what portion of the same was supplied by the United Kingdom or other countries?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): The information is not available in this country but I will ask the Government of India whether they can supply it.

Mr. DAY: Will the Minister suggest to the Government of India that they should, all things being equal, give a preference to United Kingdom manufacturers?

Mr. BUTLER: I think the Government of India have that consideration always in mind.

OTTAWA AGREEMENT.

Sir PATRICK HANNON: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the decision of the Indian Legislative Assembly to give notice to terminate the agreement signed at Ottawa in 1932 between the British Government and the Government of India; whether the Government of India intend to take action in accordance with this decision; and whether any action is contemplated by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom?

Mr. LEWIS: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India have yet given notice to terminate the agreement signed at Ottawa between the British Government and the Government of India, in accordance with the recent decision of the Indian Legislative Assembly?

Mr. BUTLER: I am aware of the recent vote of the Legislative Assembly. In view of the undertakings given by the Government of India to the Legislative Assembly, it is presumed that the Government of India will in due course give formal notice of termination of the agreement. The next step lies with the Government of India.

Sir P. HANNON: Will His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom make representations to the Government of India?

Mr. BUTLER: I think that consideration will be borne in mind.

Mr. LEWIS: How soon will the hon. Gentleman be able to tell us when the Government of India have decided to give notice; and how much notice will have to be given?

Mr. BUTLER: The Government of India will have to give notice in the terms of their commitment to the Assembly after the result of the Assembly debate. I shall certainly try to keep the House informed when the Government of India take the decision.

Mr. LEWIS: Can the hon. Gentleman answer the second part of my question as to the length of the notice which will have to be given?

Mr. BUTLER: I understand that it is six months.

Sir P. HANNON: In view of the great importance of this decision in the Assembly, will His Majesty's Government make representations to the Government of India as to the undesirability of taking this course?

Mr. BUTLER: The Government of India are already committed to the Assembly to give notice in view of the decision which the Assembly took.

QUETTA (REBUILDING).

Lieut. - Colonel Sir ARNOLD WILSON: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what is the estimated cost of rebuilding Quetta; and whether, in view of the fact that Russia, Afghanistan and Persia are members of the League of Nations and adherents with India and Great Britain to the principle of collective security, it is proposed to give further consideration to the strategic needs of this part of the frontier of India?

Mr. BUTLER: The civil and military reconstruction of Quetta is at present expected to cost on provisional estimates something over seven crores of rupees. The strategic needs of the frontier of India are under constant consideration, and all relevant factors were taken into account when the decision was taken to rebuild Quetta.

Sir A. WILSON: In view of the fact that the menace can only come from Russia, will not my hon. Friend consult the Foreign Secretary with a view to the conclusion of a non-aggression pact with Russia?

Mr. WISE: As Great Britain appears to be committed to bearing the cost of everybody else's defence, would it not be fair to ask Russia and Afghanistan to contribute towards the rebuilding?

Mr. SHINWELL: Has the hon. Gentleman any reason to suppose that any menace is coming from Russia?

Mr. SUBHAS BOSE.

Mr. THURTLE: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the Government's declared intention to deprive Mr. Subhas C. Bose of his liberty in the event of his return to

India, it is the intention of the Government to formulate a definite charge against Mr. Bose and bring him to trial on this charge?

Mr. BUTLER: As regards the action to be taken against Mr. Subhas Bose, my Noble Friend must be guided by the views of the authorities in India. Mr. Bose was previously detailed under Regulation III of 1818, a procedure which does not involve trial upon definite charges.

Mr. THURTLE: Will the hon. Gentleman ascertain the views of the Government of India as to any future course of action against Mr. Bose?

Mr. BUTLER: Certainly.

Mr. MAXTON: Will the hon. Gentleman not use his influence to stop the persecution of this gentleman who has a distinguished record of public work in India?

Mr. BUTLER: The same reasons which led to Mr. Bose's detention in 1932 still hold good, but he his been allowed to visit Europe for medical reasons.

Mr. J. ADHIKARI.

Mr. JAGGER: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that Mr. J. Adhikari, of Bombay, who has been interned at Bijapur without trial since August, 1934, is suffering seriously from haemophilia, for the treatment of which no adequate facilities are available in India; that a restricted passport was granted to Mr. Adhikari for a single journey to England for the purpose of undergoing special treatment, and that this passport was suddenly cancelled for reasons stated to be political; and whether he will state the nature of these reasons and permit Mr. Adhikari to visit this country in order to receive the necessary medical treatment?

Mr. BUTLER: I am awaiting a report from the Government of India regarding the health of Mr. J. M. Adhikari, and will communicate with the hon. Member when it is received.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN COUNTRIES (STERLING CURRENCY).

Captain MACNAMARA: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that British Consuls


in foreign countries charge British subjects in gold pounds and refuse to accept sterling currency; and what is the reason for this practice?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): I assume that my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind the instructions under which British consular officers receive fees only in local currency calculated at not lower than the par rate of exchange. The reason for this practice is to provide in part for the additional cost in sterling of the local currency required for maintaining British diplomatic and consular establishments in countries where sterling is at a discount. In such countries the provision thus required would not be secured if local currency were accepted at the current rate of exchange or sterling currency were to be accepted as though it were of its face value in gold.

Mr. JAGGER: Are we to take it that this is a convenient way of replenishing the petty cash?

Oral Answers to Questions — SIAM.

Lieut. - Commander FLETCHER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the negotiations between the Japanese and Siamese Governments relative to the cutting of a canal through the isthmus of Kra?

Mr. EDEN: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given to a similar question put by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, East (Mr. Mander) on Thursday last.

Lieut.-Commander FLETCHER: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information to show whether the cutting of such a canal is a practical proposition or not?

Mr. EDEN: I am afraid that is not a question for me.

Oral Answers to Questions — OUTER MONGOLIA.

Mr. CREECH JONES: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information concerning the recent agreement between the Mongolian Republic and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; when it was made; and what are its terms?

Mr. EDEN: I am informed that a protocol of mutual assistance between

the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Outer Mongolian authorities was signed at Urga on 12th March. I understand that this protocol, of which no details are yet available, embodies obligations which have been in existence since 1921.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether one of the parties to the Treaty is a part of the Republic of China?

Mr. EDEN: I understand the Soviet Government have communicated the agreement to the Chinese Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.

Mr. KENNEDY: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any action has been taken by the Government, directly or through the League of Nations, in connection with the use of poison gas and the bombing of open civilian towns and Red Cross units by the Italian forces in Abyssinia?

Mr. EDEN: As regards the use of asphyxiating gas and attacks by aircraft on Red Cross units, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave last Monday to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet), in which I stated that the Committee of Thirteen had decided to refer the complaints of the Ethiopian Government to the Italian Government, and that the representative of His Majesty's Government on the committee had associated himself with this decision. Action to give effect to the decision was taken by the chairman of the committee on 23rd March. As regards the question of the use of gas, within the last few days His Majesty's Government have inquired at Geneva whether the answer of the Italian Government had been received, and if not, when it was to be expected. They have also pressed for an early meeting of the Committee of Thirteen to consider the reply or the action to be taken in the event of its non-receipt. As regards the bombing of open towns, the Ethiopian Government on 29th March protested to the League of Nations against the raid carried out on that date on Harar as being a violation of Article 25 of the rules annexed to Hague Convention No. 4 of 1907. In view of the importance of guarding


against violation of the laws and customs of war relating to the protection of noncombatants, His Majesty's Government are making urgent representations that the complaint made by the Ethiopian Government should receive immediate attention from the appropriate organ of the League.

Mr. SHINWELL: Would it not be wise for this House and the Foreign Secretary on behalf of this House to express in no measured terms our condemnation of this detestable brutality?

Mr. EDEN: I think this question is to be discussed in the Debate which we are to have later.

Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government will press for the appointment of a commission, on the lines of the Lytton Commission, to furnish the Council of the League with a basis for an equitable and permanent settlement of the Italo-Abyssinian dispute?

Mr. EDEN: I do not consider that there would be any advantage, at the present time, in suggesting the appointment of such a commission. I would remind the hon. Member that in September last the League Committee of Five made a careful and thorough investigation into the origins of, and the issues involved in, the dispute between Italy and Ethiopia, and worked out in great detail a plan for its just and equitable settlement.

Oral Answers to Questions — "AEROPLANE" (ARTICLE).

Captain GUNSTON: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has been in communication recently with the French Government regarding the article which appeared in the "Aeroplane" of 25th March; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action?

Mr. EDEN: Yes, Sir. The French Ambassador made a protest about the article to which my hon. Friend refers. On examining the article, I found that it contained a number of allegations of an offensive nature against France which were quite unfounded and which could only be calculated to inflame opinion

against that country. I deplore such unfounded statements about friendly nations, which can only be regarded as mischievous and harmful to good international relations. In this country we do not suppress or confiscate newspapers, but I trust that in view of the high standard of British journalism, of which we are so proud, there will be no further regrettable exceptions of this type.

Captain GUNSTON: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his answer, does he not think it somewhat ominous that this anti-French, pro-Nazi propaganda should appear in a technical journal which circulates among the Air Force and aeroplane clubs?

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: This article was not written by a man on the means test, was it?

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (ARMAMENTS).

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the total amount spent by Germany in armaments in the last year and in the three years since the commencement of the present regime?

Mr. EDEN: The German Government have not issued any official figures on this subject and I regret, therefore, that I am not in a position to make an authoritative estimate of the nature requested.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA (BRITISH CLAIMS).

Miss CAZALET: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the claim of Mr. Joseph Martin against the Soviet Government for compensation for wrongful imprisonment in 1919 and 1920 is still unsettled;. and whether he will consider the possibility of pressing the Soviet Government to meet this and similar claims by British subjects for compensation for personal injury?

Mr. EDEN: Yes, Sir. This claim, in common with other claims of a similar nature, has been constantly before His Majesty's Government, who are most anxious that an adequate settlement of them should be reached. I can assure my hon. Friend that His Majesty's Government have every sympathy with these


claimants, and that they will lose no opportunity of endeavouring to secure such satisfaction of their claims as it may be possible to obtain.

Miss CAZALET: Could not my right hon. Friend do something further to expedite a settlement of these claims, which have been outstanding for a very long time?

Mr. EDEN: I do not think my hon. Friend would underestimate the complexity of the question, but she may rest assured that we intend to get such satisfaction as is possible for these claimants as a condition of any final settlement which may he reached.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that meanwhile many of these people, who are very poor, are nearly starving, and does he not think that representations should be made by His Majesty's Government in the matter without further delay?

Mr. EDEN: I am conscious of all that my hon. Friend has said, and I think he is also conscious of the other elements of the difficulty of the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR ARMAMENTS.

Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is prepared to accept and press for the internationalisation of all air forces as a means to avoid the multiplication of air-bombing schools and the serious consequences on the civil population?

Mr. EDEN: His Majesty's Government desire by every practical means to avert the menace of attack from the air. In existing circumstances they consider that this would best be met by the conclusion of an air pact and the limitation of air armaments, and the hon. Member will be aware that this has been and remains their aim. The hon. Member will also recall that His Majesty's Government proposed at the Disarmament Conference that the best possible scheme should be worked out for the complete abolition of military aircraft, which should be dependent on the effective supervision of civil aviation.

Mr. WILLIAMS: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government were prepared to

accept and press the necessity of an European air pact which will not only lay down the principle of collective security but also a limitation of national air forces?

Mr. EDEN: His Majesty's Government have repeatedly made it clear that they are anxious to secure the conclusion of an Air Pact between the Five Locarno Powers. They believe that such a pact will itself promote the principle of collective security. His Majesty's Government are also anxious to obtain a limitation of national air forces: and, whether in conjunction with an air pact or by other means, will continue to work for its attainment.

Oral Answers to Questions — TREATIES (ENGLISH LANGUAGE).

Mr. GARRO-JONES: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the differing interpretations of important clauses in the Locarno Treaty; whether he is aware that to a considerable degree the differences are due to the fact that the French copy alone is binding; and whether he can undertake that no further treaties will be signed which are binding only in a foreign language and that the English copy alone shall be held to bind the British Government?

Mr. EDEN: In the case of bilateral treaties, it is the practice to make the English text equally authentic with the foreign text. If His Majesty's Government were, however, to make it a rule that they should only be bound by the English text of multilateral treaties, it would be open to the other Governments concerned to make a similar rule in respect of their own language. It has, however, been found to be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to draw up equivalent texts in more than two languages, and it is therefore, in such cases, the practice to consider the text in one language only as binding on all the parties. I regret that I am, therefore, unable to give any such undertaking as that suggested.

Mr. GARRO-JONES: Having regard to the vital necessity of carrying British public opinion with British treaties, is there not a case which has developed in recent years for insisting that such treaties should be in the English language?

Mr. EDEN: I have explained the difficulties, and I think that when the hon. Member studies my answer he will appreciate them.

Sir A. WILSON: Is it not a fact that the translation in this case was not made in Great Britain by the Foreign Office but at Geneva by the officials of the League, and would it not be possible to ensure that translations in future are made by officials of the Foreign Office and not by League officials, who are not responsible to His Majesty's Government?

Mr. EDEN: I am confident that the translations are always checked by us.

Miss HORSBRUGH: Is it not a fact that all the documents of the League have, according to the arrangement, to be in English and French?

Mr. EDEN: Yes, that is so.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT.

ANGLO-EGYPTIAN CONVERSATIONS.

Mr. DONNER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will ascertain how many lawyers are attached to, or are members of, the Egyptian Delegation at present taking part in the preliminary Anglo-Egyptian conversations, and their names?

Mr. EDEN: My information is that there are no legal experts attached to the Egyptian Delegation, though some of the members of the Delegation are lawyers or have had legal training.

Mr. DONNER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the declared attitude of His Majesty's Government towards Ahmed Bey Maher and Nekrashi Bey, he will draw the attention of the Egyptian Government to the undesirability of these persons taking part in the Anglo-Egyptian conversations?

Mr. EDEN: Nekrashi Bey was a member of the Egyptian Delegation that negotiated with His Majesty's Government in 1930, while Dr. Ahmed Maher accompanied the Delegation as a technical expert. In view of these facts the action proposed by my hon. Friend is inappropriate.

Mr. DONNER: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the presiding Judge, the late

Judge Kershaw, resigned after the verdict, stating that a gross miscarriage of justice had taken place; and that he was endorsed in this attitude by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom?

Mr. CARTLAND: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give an assurance that when the Anglo-Egyptian preliminary conversations are completed, before formal treaty negotiations are opened a full statement will be made to the House and an opportunity afforded for debate?

Mr. EDEN: I will certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend's request for a statement when a suitable occasion presents itself.

Mr. CARTLAND: May we take it then that the House will not be committed by these preliminary conversations, but will have an opportunity to express their feelings and opinions on the matter before the negotiations begin?

Mr. EDEN: I think my answer is quite clear.

Mr. DONNER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state, approximately, at what date the formal Anglo-Egyptian Treaty negotiations are likely to be opened; and whether he can give an assurance that the legal expert to advise the British delegation will arrive in Cairo before that time?

Mr. EDEN: The answer to the first part of the question is, No, Sir. As regards the second part, I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend on Wednesday last.

MURDER Or SIR LEE STACK.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the statement made to the Prime Minister of Egypt, on 2nd June, 1926, that the acquittal of four persons, including Ahmed Bey Maher, tried for complicity in the murder of Sir Lee Stack, could not be accepted by His Majesty's Government as proof that the persons were innocent of the charges made against them, is still the view of His Majesty's Government?

Mr. EDEN: My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. No such statement was made on behalf of His Majesty's


Government with regard to the trial of persons accused of complicity in the murder of Sir Lee Stack.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: Is it not a fact that His Majesty's High Commissioner, purporting to act on behalf of His Majesty's Government, used precisely the words that appear at the conclusion of my question?

Mr. EDEN: No, Sir. My hon. Friend is misinformed.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: If I put a question on the Paper drawing my right hon. Friend's attention to the actual words, will he be kind enough to give me an answer then?

Mr. EDEN: If my hon. Friend will await the answer to another question on the Paper, he may see where his error arises.

Mr. CARTLAND: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Ahmed Bey Maher and Nekrashi Bey were tried in Cairo in March, 1926, for complicity in the murder of Sir Lee Stack?

Mr. EDEN: No, Sir.

At the end of Questions:

Mr. THURTLE: I desire, Mr. Speaker, to raise a point of Order with regard to Question No. 26, which appears on the Order, Paper to-day in the name of the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Cartland). You will observe that that question contains a grave implication in regard to two very distinguished Egyptian citizens; and you may remember, Sir, that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said that that statement had no basis in fact. I understand it is a Rule of the House that Members have to accept responsibility for statements made in their questions. I submit to you that, when such a grave statement as this is put down in a question, the Member himself ought to make sure that. it is in accordance with facts; and that to put a statement of this kind in a question without making certain that it is true is a grave breach of the Orders of the House.

Mr. CARTLAND: On that point of Order. May I say that, as far as I knew when I put the question on the Paper, the facts were correct in every respect? I have not had time, since the hon. Member told me he was going to raise this

point of Order, to produce a more authoritative statement than the book written by the ex-High Commissioner of Egypt dealing with these facts, in which it is stated that these two men were tried by a Court of Assize in Cairo consisting of Judge Kershaw as President and two Egyptian judges; the verdict of the Court was delivered on 25th May, 1926, the trial having begun in March, 1926. On these facts I submit that the question as put down on the Paper is correct.

Mr. SPEAKER: It is a very well known Rule of the House that, as the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) has stated, a Member who puts down statements in a question makes himself responsible for the truth of those statements. He cannot do more than that.

Oral Answers to Questions — DARDANELLES (FORTIFICATIONS).

Sir W. DAVISON: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any communication has been received from the Turkish Government with reference to the rebuilding of the fortifications on the Dardanelles?

Mr. EDEN: No official communication has been received, but the Turkish Minister for Foreign Affairs has mentioned the desire of his Government to raise this question at some suitable moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Colonel Sir EDWARD RUGGLESBRISE: asked the Minister of Pensions whether his Department is kept informed as to the methods employed and experience gained by the war pensions departments of other countries in the war handling of disabilities; and, if not, will he take steps to secure such information?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. R. S. Hudson): Yes, Sir. My Department is in touch with pension authorities abroad, and published information is regularly collected. I have, however, felt it desirable to study on the spot the experience of other countries in regard to a number of points connected with the administration of pensions, and the medical and surgical treatment of the war disabled. For this purpose three


of the principal officers of my Department are at the moment about to visit both Germany and France.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

EGGS (IMPORTS).

Mr. T. COOK: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the great increase in the importation of eggs from Poland and Rumania in February of this year compared with the same month in 1935; and whether he has any statement to make on the subject?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I would refer to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) on 23rd March, a copy of which I am sending to my hon. Friend.

Sir P. HANNON: When will my right hon. Friend be in a position to give us some definite statement as to the policy of the Government in relation to these enormous imports of eggs into this country in competition with our own?

Mr. ELLIOT: This case is governed, as my hon. Friend knows, by trade agreements.

WHEAT DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS (PROSECUTIONS).

Mr. THORNE: asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of successful prosecutions that have been taken by the Wheat Commission against farmers and millers who have made false applications for deficiency payments; the total amount paid under false pretences; and the total amount of fines to the nearest available date?

Mr. ELLIOT: Applications for deficiency payments can only be made by persons who are registered growers, and up to the 3rd April, 1936, there have been three cases where convictions have been secured against growers of wheat for obtaining, or attempting to obtain, deficiency payments to which they were not entitled. Twenty-four registered growers were concerned in these cases. The amount of the deficiency payments in question was approximately £3,500. The

total amount of the fines imposed was £615, and, in addition, the growers were required to pay a total sum of £327 towards the costs of the prosecution.

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it would be wise, seeing that there arc so many farmers breaking the law, to put them under the means test?

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: Do not the figures given by my right hon. Friend show the overwhelming good faith of the huge majority of the farmers growing wheat in this country?

Mr. ELLIOT: Yes. It is a very small number of the registered growers.

BACON.

Mr. BARCLAY-HARVEY: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is now in a position to state what percentage of British bacon is tank cured?

Mr. ELLIOT: The Bacon Marketing Board have no information as to the proportion of tank-cured bacon to total output. Replies to a questionnaire issued by the board last year to registered curers indicate, however, that the tank curing capacity of the bacon factories in Great Britain has more than doubled since 1931.

Mr. BARCLAY-HARVEY: Will my right hon. Friend consider the necessity of getting the information?

Mr. ELLIOT: Yes, I will consider that.

MEAT SUPPLIES.

Mr. LIDDALL: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is now in the position to state the Government's long-term livestock policy?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a full statement of the position which I made in reply to questions by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) on 4th February. There is nothing at present to add to that statement, except to say that the discussions with the Argentine Government on the propose is put forward by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are now being resumed.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Can my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that neither the Ottawa Agreements nor the Argentine Agreement will be renewed except upon terms more satisfactory to the home producer?

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Has a decision been made as to the conclusion on 7th May of the Agreement with the Argentine?

Mr. ELLIOT: That question should be addressed to the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. BOOTHBY: May I have an answer to my question?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am afraid that it is not a question to which any answer can be given by a Departmental Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

LOST LETTER-PACKETS (COMPENSATION).

Mr. GARRO-JON ES: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the Post. Office declines to pay any compensation for letter-packets lost in the post, even when the addressee has received communications from the Customs authorities stating that the packet has been received and inviting the addressee to witness the opening thereof, and that an example of such a case is a letter-packet addressed to Mr. A. C. Brown, 145, Pittodrie Place, Aberdeen, who can ill-afford to bear the loss caused by an accident or negligence in the Post Office; and whether he will take steps to bring fairer regulations into force?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Walter Womersley): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. So far as the second part is concerned, the sender of a letter can, by paying a small registration fee, provide for the payment of compensation in the event of the loss of that letter in the post.

Mr. GARRO-JONES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this parcel came from abroad where we cannot expect a knowledge of the English Post Office regulations to exist; and will he ask his right hon. Friend whether, in view of the vast profits made by the Post Office, he is content to allow a situation to remain

under which the Post Office is in a privileged position as compared with a private business?

Sir W. WOMERSLEY: I am aware that this parcel came from abroad. My right hon. Friend has given great consideration to this question of compensation, and he is of the definite opinion that to pay compensation for an unregistered packet would defeat the whole object of having the registration system.

Mr. GARRO-JONES: Is the Post master-General relying on the existing regulations which prohibit him, or does he say he has no power?

Sir W. WOMERSLEY: My right hon. Friend is certainly relying on the existing regulations.

Mr. GARRO-JONES: Does the Postmaster-General rely on the fact that he has no power, or is he refusing to grant compensation, although he has the power?

Sir W. WOMERSLEY: He is relying on the regulations, under which he has no power to make any payment.

Sir P. HANNON: On a point of Order. May I ask whether a question of this kind' affecting an individual could not have been dealt with by correspondence with the Post Office instead of wasting the time of the House?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is for the hon. Member and not for me to say.

SUS-OFFICES (ASSISTANTS).

Mr. DAY: asked the Postmaster-General whether there is any fixed rate of wage arranged by the Post Office for assistants who perform counter duties at sub-post offices; will he state their remuneration; and give particulars of the nature of their duties?

Sir W. WOMERSLEY: The terms of a sub-postmaster's appointment prescribe that the remuneration and conditions of service generally of his assistants should be not less favourable than those of shop assistants of about the same standing in the service of good employers in the same district. The duties consist in the main of the sale of stamps and postal orders, the acceptance of parcels and telegrams, Savings Bank transactions, the payment of old age pensions, the despatch and receipt of mails, and in certain cases telephone work.

Mr. DAY: Is it a fact that they have to handle substantial sums of money?

Sir W. WOMERSLEY: We hope so, otherwise these offices would not be transacting much business.

Mr. DAY: Is the Minister aware that one sub-post office in South London is advertising for assistants not under 16 years of age at the miserable wage of 10s. a week? How can he expect them to be honest?

Sir W. WOMERSLEY: If the hon. Member will send me a copy of that advertisement we will inquire into it. We lay down definitely that the fair wages clause should apply to the people employed by contractors to the Post Office.

Mr. DAY: I have the advertisement here and I will hand it to the hon. Gentleman.

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (LETTERS, FRANKING).

Mr. DAVID ADAMS: asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the increasing interest taken by citizens generally in public questions resulting in considerably augmented correspondence with this House, he will consider the desirability of franking those letters of Members devoted to public business?

Sir W. WOMERSLEY: The hon. Member's proposal would revive in a modified form the system of franking which was abolished by the Act of 1840, and I see serious objections to its adoption.

Mr. ADAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the matter after the introduction of the Budget?

Sir W. WOMERSLEY: No, Sir.

OUTER HEBRIDES.

Mr. MALCOLM MacMILLAN: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will investigate the present inadequate postal service to the Outer Hebrides and take steps to have it improved at the earliest opportunity?

Sir W. WOMERSLEY: All available services to the Outer Hebrides are at present used for the conveyance of mails, and in the circumstances I see no possibility of improving the postal services at present.

NORTH HARROW.

Mr. SHORT: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the inadequate post office facilities at North Harrow and that the existing sub-post office closes on Wednesday afternoons; and whether, having regard to the increasing population and needs, he will consider making an improvement?

Sir W. WOMERSLEY: I am aware that there is a demand for extended counter facilities at North Harrow and that the sub-office closes on Wednesday afternoons. I am considering whether better facilities can be provided.

Oral Answers to Questions — REGENTKS PARK.

Sir CYRIL COBB: asked the First Commissioner of Works the number of weeks annually during which plays are actually performed in the area assigned to the open-air theatre in the Queen Mary Garden, Regent's Park, and also the number of weeks during which the general public is given free access to this same area as a garden retreat with seating accommodation?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): Plays were performed at the open-air theatre during 15 weeks last summer, and band performances were given on Sunday evenings during the season. Apart from these times, the area is not open to the public, as it is not suitable for use as a garden retreat.

Sir C. COBB: asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that there is a small open planted area in the Nursery Lodge in Regent's Park, not covered by forcing-houses, which can be spared for incorporation with the Queen Mary Garden; and will he put on this spot a children's shower-shelter?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I presume the hon. Member refers to the small area leased to the University of London for botanical experiments. These experiments were being conducted before we took over the gardens at the conclusion of the lease of the Royal Botanic Society, and I am not prepared to close them down as suggested by the hon. Member.

Sir C. COBB: asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will provide in a suitable position one more


public convenience, or possibly two, in Regent's Park, in addition to those already in Queen Mary Garden, and near the boat-house bridge at the end of the lake?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I would point out that there are already public conveniences at eight different points in Regent's Park and not at two as stated in the hon. Member's question. I am not at present disposed to add to them.

Oral Answers to Questions — CEYLON.

Sir A. POWNALL: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet received the report from the Governor of Ceylon with regard to the disturbances at the recent elections?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. J. H. Thomas): No, Sir, I have received a brief telegraphic report on the elections, but the full report for which I have asked has not yet been received.

Sir A. POWNALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he expects to receive the report?

Mr. THOMAS: I do not know.

Oral Answers to Questions — MATERNITY AND CHILD WELFARE (MILK).

Mr. JOHNSTON: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the report of the advisory committee on nutrition upon the urgent necessity in the national interest of raising the consumption of liquid milk by pre-school children and expectant and nursing mothers; whether he is aware that such increased consumption would secure better bone formation, stature, and physique, diminish the incidence of disease, and diminish dental caries; and whether, seeing that the conclusions have been endorsed by the two Members of the Cabinet identified with public health administration, the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland, he will say what steps, if any, he proposes to take this year on the matter?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): My right hon. Friends have under consideration the possibility of securing an extension of the maternity and child

welfare arrangements, but until the report of the Milk Re-organisation Commission has been received and their recommendations examined I am not in a position to say when it will be possible to take the necessary steps in this direction.

Oral Answers to Questions — STAFF CONVERSATIONS.

Mr. DAY: asked the Prime Minister whether he will assure the House that no definite decision or commitments involving the British Empire will be made as the outcome of the Staff Conferences during the time this House is in Recess during Easter?

The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs made it clear in the statement which he made to the House on Friday that the proposed Staff Conversations will not increase the political obligations of this country. The hon. Member's apprehensions are therefore without foundation.

Mr. DAY: Will the Staff Conferences consist of the guarantor Powers to the Locarno Treaty?

The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO.

Colonel GOODMAN: asked the Prime Minister whether it is intended to appoint a Minister without Portfolio in succession to the right hon. Member for Hastings (Sir E. Percy)?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.

Lieut. - Commander FLETCHER: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that he will not appoint a successor to the Minister without Portfolio without allocating specific duties to such a successor and providing him with a staff?

The PRIME MINISTER: As it is not proposed to appoint a successor to my right hon. and Noble Friend the Member for Hastings this question does not arise.

Lieut.-Commander FLETCHER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, looking back over the incident, he does not think that the position of the late


Minister without Portfolio during his whole tenure of office was absurd, unfair and humiliating?

Mr. SPEAKER: We must never look back.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

TRADE AGREEMENTS.

Sir E. RUGGLES-BRISE: asked the Prime Minister whether any sub-committee of the Cabinet has been appointed to co-ordinate policy in regard to the forthcoming revision of the trade agreements with foreign countries, and also the Ottawa Agreements, with a. view to safeguarding adequately the position of the home agricultural industry?

The PRIME MINISTER: There is the closest possible collaboration between the Ministers directly concerned with these questions. The ultimate responsibility for co-ordination of policy must of course rest with the Cabinet as a whole.

Sir E. RUGGLES-BRISE: In view of the great importance of this matter will the right hon. Gentleman consider the necessity of setting up a sub-committee or some other committee?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think we have all the co-ordination necessary for the purpose.

PLUMAGE (IMPORT LICENCES).

Mr. MATHERS: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will furnish particulars of the conditions laid down for the granting of permits to allow of the importation of plumage normally prohibited from entering this country under the Importation of Plumage (Prohibition) Act, 1921; and for what period such permits are made available?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): Licences to import plumage for the restricted purposes stated in Section 2 (4) of the Act are granted subject to the conditions that they are not transferable and may be revoked at any time by the Board of Trade without reason given. The period of validity is usually limited to three months, but certain permits, for instance, to museums, may be granted for longer periods.

PALESTINE (IMPORT DUTIES).

Mr. WESTWOOD: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the application made by the Palestine Foundries and Metal Works, Limited, to the high commission in Palestine for an increase of duties from 7s. per bath to 30s. per bath, for an increase of duties on cast-iron soil pipes and connections from £1 per ton to £3 per ton, and for the withdrawal of the overriding ordinance which suspended the duties on pipes and fittings to be used in connection with water and drainage installations; that the withdrawal of this ordinance will make it impossible for British makers to do an export trade in these baths, pipes and connections with Palestine; and what action has been, or is likely to be, taken to safeguard British manufacturing interests?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I have been asked to reply. I am aware of the proposals in question, which are designed to protect a local industry in Palestine. The hon. Member will appreciate that it would not be proper for His Majesty's Government to interfere in this matter owing to this being a mandated territory.

Mr. WESTWOOD: Is it not possible for His Majesty's Ministers at least to open up negotiations, even with a mandated territory, in the interests of British trade?

Mr. THOMAS: It is possible to do it, but under the mandate we have to give impartial consideration to all countries, and I am sure that if I announced in this House that His Majesty's Government were going to interfere in the manner suggested I should at once be asked, "What about the mandate?"

NORWEGIAN SLATES.

Mr. GARRO-JONES: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that large cargoes of slates are being imported from Norway into England and Scotland without any indication that they are foreign; that these slates are admitted by the Board of Trade officials on the ground that, having been purchased by sample, they are not required to be marked unless the bulk are offered for sale in this country; and whether it is the practice of the board to


accept, in the case of goods imported by sample, a presumption that they will not be offered for sale?

Dr. BURGIN: There is no requirement at law that all imported goods must bear an indication of origin. By Orders in Council made under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, certain classes and descriptions of goods (including certain building materials) are required to bear such an indication on sale or exposure for sale in the United Kingdom, and in some cases at the time of importation also. The latter requirement does not apply to roofing slates, although under the Merchandise Marks (Imported Goods) No. 1 Order of 1930 they must be marked on sale or exposure for sale in the United Kingdom. The interpretation of the Act is, of course, a matter for the courts, but I am advised that a sale in the United Kingdom of slates which are abroad at the time of sale would probably not be held to be a sale within the United Kingdom of imported goods, and would be outside the scope of the Order, though if the slates were subsequently resold after importation, it would be necessary for the prescribed indication of origin to be applied. If the hon. Member is aware of any case in which this provision is not being complied with, I should be glad to arrange for the matter to be investigated.

Oral Answers to Questions — WORLD PEACE.

Mr. ELLIS SMITH: asked the Prime Minister whether he will prepare a constructive peace policy, including a permanent peace conference with political and economic sections, which shall be submitted to the next meeting of the League of Nations; and will he attend at Geneva in order to put forward these proposals and give a lead to the world in order to stop the drift towards war?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid that I cannot add to the replies which I gave to a somewhat similar question and supplementary question asked by the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) last Thursday.

Mr. SMITH: Is the Prime Minister aware of the growing feeling in the country that it is time this Government took the initiative with a view to bringing about a settlement?

Mr. WISE: May I ask whether we are to read into the phrase "a permanent peace conference" the idea that this conference should sit for ever without coming to a decision?

Oral Answers to Questions — NORWAY.

Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: asked the Prime Minister whether, when dealing with Germany's request for a return of colonies, His Majesty's Government will safeguard the claim of Norway, which not only volunteered to join the Allies at the outset of the War, but which has lost through emigration more citizens than any other country in the last generation, so that to-day there are more Norwegians, born in Norway, living abroad, than in Norway itself?

The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government are not aware of the existence of any such claim.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS (BROADCASTING).

Captain BULLOCK: asked the Prime Minister whether, on the occasion of public pronouncements of the first magnitude in the House of Commons on which there is general agreement, such as the speech by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on 26th March, he will consider arranging for the subsequent broadcasting by the British Broadcasting Corporation of such pronouncements for the information and guidance of the public?

The PRIME MINISTER: The manner in which reports of Parliamentary proceedings are broadcast is a matter which lies within the discretion of the British Broadcasting Corporation; and no doubt a number of considerations, technical and otherwise, arise in each case. I think the corporation usually broadcast fairly full summaries of such pronouncements, but I am bringing my hon. Friend's question and this reply to the notice of the corporation.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that grave apprehension exists among large numbers of the public as to what is the Government's policy in the matter of the Rhineland; and could he himself or the Foreign Secretary give a short broadcast to make


it clear that the use of British troops would apply only to an unprovoked attack on French territory and not with regard to sending troops into the Rhineland itself?

The PRIME MINISTER: If I gave a short broadcast, and it was followed by other broadcasts, I think the mind of the public would be more confused than it is now.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIES AND MANDATED TERRITORIES.

Mr. SANDYS: asked the Prime Minister whether the declaration made by the Secretary of State for the Colonies on 12th February to the effect that His Majesty's Government had not considered and were not considering the handing over of British mandated territories to any other Power still represents the policy of His Majesty's Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: There has been no change in the attitude of His Majesty's Government in this matter.

Mr. SANDYS: In view of the existing anxiety, can the Prime Minister give us an assurance that this will be the policy of His Majesty's Government in future?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have answered the question on the Paper, and I have nothing more to say.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to statements in the Press about a speech reported to have been made by the Under-Secretary, Lord Stanhope, showing quite another point of view?

The PRIME MINISTER: I see many statements in the Press. I noticed one in the "Daily Mail" this morning. The one I have just made is authoritative.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

INSURANCE (WOMEN).

Captain MACNAMARA: asked the Minister of Labour how many married women were employed in insurable employment in the country on 1st March, 1936; how many married women were in receipt of unemployment insurance benefit on 1st March, 1936; and how many

claims for unemployment benefit by married women have been refused in the past 12 months on the ground that these women were unable to prove the conditions required by paragraph 4 of the Statutory Rules and Orders, 1931, No. 818, Unemployment Insurance Anomalies Regulation s, 1931?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Lieut.- Colonel Muirhead): At July, 1932, the latest date for which figures have been obtained, it was estimated, on the basis of a sample enquiry, that there were approximately 655,000 married women and widows in Great Britain insured against unemployment. A special inquiry relating to 4th November, 1935, showed that at that date, 87,886 married women were applicants for unemployment benefit or unemployment allowances. The number of claims for unemployment benefit or unemployment allowances disallowed by Courts of Referees in Great Britain during the 12 months ended 29th February, 1936, under paragraph 4 of the Anomalies Regulations was 41,361. This figure relates to claims and the number of separate individuals concerned is not available.

HOTEL EMPLOYÉS (AGENCIES).

Mr. WESTWOOD: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the widespread practice of advertising vacancies for hotel and catering trade employés and giving a box number to which applications are to be sent; that applicants then, in many cases, receive from alleged employment agencies communications requesting booking fees of from is. 6d. to 10s.; and will he set up a committee to inquire into the genuineness of these so-called employment agencies with a view to stopping this exploitation of the unemployed?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I have been asked to reply to this question. Powers of control over employment agencies are given by local Act where need for such powers is shown to exist. My right hon. Friend sees no reason why any abuses arising in the manner described should not be dealt with under those powers. If the hon. Member will give my right hon. Friend particulars of any cases which have been brought to his notice, he will be glad to investigate them.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADMIRALTY CONTRACTS (CLYDE AND TYNE).

Mr. DENVILLE: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what was the tonnage of Government orders allocated to the Clyde and Tyne, respectively, during the last six months?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lord Stanley): During the last six months, warship orders allocated to the Clyde district amounted to approximately 30,400 tons, and to the Tyne district 11,700 tons. It would, however, be misleading to base deductions on comparative figures for so short a period.

Mr. DENVILLE: Will the Noble Lord tell me why there is such a difference in the allocations to the Tyne as compared with the Clyde?

Lord STANLEY: It probably depended largely upon the prices of the tenders.

Mr. EDE: Can the Noble Lord say over what period he would be able to demonstrate that there has been a fair distribution of orders as between these two rivers?

Lord STANLEY: I should say over two or three years' new construction programmes.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION.

SURREY FLYING SERVICES.

Mr. MONTAGUE: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that the Surrey Flying Services, previous to the crash on Thursday, 26th March, had stated that weather conditions would prevent night work being done and that the pilot of another aeroplane which had been struck in the same cloud had turned back, receiving a severe reprimand; and whether he will make a statement on the matter?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): The hon. Member is misinformed. I have made inquiries of Surrey Flying Services, who state that weather conditions were favourable for flying when the two pilots set out on 26th March; otherwise they would not have started. Subsequently one of the pilots encountered a severe static storm and after warning the other pilot by wireless turned back to Croydon. So far

from being reprimanded, he was commended for exercising his judgment in returning.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Is it a fact that one of the pilots said ice formations were encountered at 4,000 feet?

Sir P. SASSOON: No, Sir, I did not see that, and the weather conditions were quite favourable for flying before they started.

ARMY CO-OPERATION.

Mr. MONTAGUE: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air (1) whether Army co-operation work may take the form of private passenger flights with the consent of the military authorities;
(2) whether aeroplanes used for Army co-operation work are in any cases supplied by private firms letting out machines; and, if so, what terms and form of contract are agreed upon?

Sir P. SASSOON: Civil aircraft have, in the interests of economy, been hired for anti-aircraft co-operation practice on many occasions during the last three years. The main terms of the contract provide that the air transport company concerned will provide an aeroplane to fly over named areas for so many hours between such and such dates, but all risks to pilots, passengers (except Army personnel carried with due authority), aeroplane and third parties will rest with the contractor, and that hours of actual cooperation will be paid for at specified rates. Otherwise there is no reference to the carriage of passengers, which is thus at the company's discretion, provided they perform the specific service required of them in the contract.

Oral Answers to Questions — COTTON WORKERS (MENTAL TREATMENT).

Mr. KENNEDY: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to discussions at a meeting of the Lancashire Public Assistance Committee on Monday last at Preston, which indicated an alarming increase of mental trouble requiring public treatment among cotton workers, to which special attention was drawn in the report of a commissioner of the board of control; whether he is aware that the report of the commissioner attributes the increase of


mental trouble to malnutrition, unemployment, and the operation of the means test; and if he proposes to take any action?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): My right hon. Friend has been informed of the discussions referred to by the right hon. Gentleman and he has read the commissioner's report. There is nothing in the report to the effect suggested in the second part of the question. The third part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — RIVER POLLUTION.

Mr. SHORT: asked the Minister of Health how many county councils and county boroughs have set up rivers boards in accordance with the Ministry's letter circulated to such councils?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Since the issue by my right hon. Friend's predecessor in September, 1928, of a circular letter referring to the powers for constituting joint committees for the prevention of river pollution, one joint committee representing five county councils and one county borough council has been established for the River Dee.

Mr. SHORT: asked the Minister of Health how many reports have been issued by the Joint Advisory Committee on Rivers Pollution; and whether a further report is likely to be issued shortly?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The Committee have issued three reports. The reply to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Accidents to boys in Northumberland.


—
Under 16 years.
16–18 years.


Killed.
Disabled for more than 3 days.
Killed.
Disabled for more than 3 days.


1933
…
…
…
1
352
1
486


1934
…
…
…
1
513
1
470


1935
…
…
…
3
534
—
497

Oral Answers to Questions — INSURANCE DOCTORS (CLERICAL ASSISTANCE).

Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that doctors with large panel practices are overburdened with the clerical work involved in registering their patients and filling forms, etc.; and whether, as this non-medical work adversely affects the capacity of doctors to cure, as well as injuring their health, he will take steps to make a small grant to doctors with large panel practices in order to enable them to afford clerical assistance?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend is not aware that insurance doctors are overburdened with the clerical work to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. Account was taken of this necessary part of their work when their capitation fee was fixed.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY (ACCIDENTS, BOYS).

Mr. R. J. TAYLOR: asked the Secretary for Mines (1) the number of fatal and non-fatal accidents to lads between 16 to 18 years of age during 1933, 1934, and 1935, respectively, in Northumberland mines?
(2) the number of fatal and non-fatal accidents to lads of 14 to 16 years of age during 1933, 1934, and 1935, respectively, in Northumberland mines?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Captain Crookshank): As the reply involves a number of figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

FISHING INDUSTRY.

Mr. GALLACHER: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that owing to the bad financial position of the Scottish fishing fleets there is a possibility that they will not be able to put to sea this season; and will he therefore consider the provision of a grant for the reconditioning of the fleets to enable them to put to sea in the normal way?

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. T. M. Cooper): My right hon. Friend is aware that a number of the Scottish herring drifters require financial assistance for the purposes of reconditioning and equipment with nets. Financial assistance in the form of loans for these purposes has been offered by the Herring Industry Board in pursuance of the Herring Industry Act. I would refer to the reply given to the hon. Member on 24th March which explained that grants for these purposes are not permitted by the Act.

Mr. GALLAGHER: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the average net earnings of fishermen employed in steam drifters working from the port of Buckie in the years 1924, 1930, 1932, 1934, and 1935?

The LORD ADVOCATE: I regret that the information desired by the hon. Member is not available.

Mr. BOOTHBY: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the herring fishing fleet is rapidly falling into obsolescence and disrepair; and, in view of the fact that an efficient drifter fleet is an essential part of the national defences, whether His Majesty's Government will take immediate steps to improve the quality and efficiency of the herring fleet?

The LORD ADVOCATE: My right hon. Friend is aware that a considerable number of the existing steam drifters are in poor condition. As regards the second part of the question, financial assistance has been offered by the Herring Industry Board under the Herring Industry Act for improving the condition of the vessels, and the Board propose to consider the question of new construction when the results of reconditioning are ascertained.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Is the Lord Advocate aware that there is no capital in the industry and that it consequently cannot raise the money to take advantage of the loan at the present time; and, in regard to the difficulties of the herring fishing fleet, whether the Scottish Office are in touch with the Minister for the Coordination of Defence and the Herring Industry Board on the subject?

The LORD ADVOCATE: As regards the latter part of the question, I understand that the possible utilisation of herring drifters for the purposes of national defence is under consideration by the proper Department. As regards the earlier part of the question, I can only refer the hon. Member to the fuller information which was given in reply to the question on 24th March when it was pointed out that the Herring Industry Act passed only last year was passed in the full knowledge of the position of the herring industry, and that schemes under that Act are at the moment in process of being carried into operation.

Mr. THURTLE: Does the Lord Advocate agree with the suggestion in the question that private enterprise has completely failed?

OATS.

Mr. BOOTHBY: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the oats question is still under the active consideration of His Majesty's Government?

The LORD ADVOCATE: Yes, Sir.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Can the Lord Advocate give any indication as to when we may expect a statement as to the policy of the Government?

The LORD ADVOCATE: I am afraid not, Sir. My right hon. Friend is not in a position to say when he will be able to make a statement on the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

CHILDREN, CANAL BOATS.

Mr. ADAMSON: asked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been drawn to the report of the children's care committee of the Wolverhampton education authority; that during the last 12 months 151 children of school age living


on the canal boats visiting within the district under their control had not attended school to receive education; and whether he will seek powers to enforce attendance of canal-boat children for educational purposes?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Oliver Stanley): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am afraid I cannot undertake to introduce legislation to prohibit the presence of children on canal boats, as suggested in the report.

Mr. ADAMSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give some assurance that he will have consideration for the education of these children?

Mr. STANLEY: The question was very fully discussed in the House not so very long ago, and this particular proposal was dealt with.

TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION.

Miss CAZALET: asked the President of the Board of Education whether the Government propose to make any change in the scales of contributions to the teachers" superannuation fund, in view of the report of the Government actuary?

Mr. STANLEY: The Government Actuary's report is the first valuation of the teachers' pension scheme under the Act of 1925, and having regard to the comparatively short period during which this pension scheme has been in operation, and to the exceptional conditions affecting the rate of teachers' retirements during part of that period, it is not proposed on this occasion to take action with a view to obtaining a revision of the present basis of contributions.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIXED EASTER.

Mr. MABANE.: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any progress has yet been made towards fixing a date as provided in 18 and 19 Geo. V., c. 35, Section 2 (2)?

Mr. LLOYD: I am not in a position to add anything to the reply given to my hon. Friend on 20th December, 1934.

Mr. MABANE: Is the Minister aware of the very powerful feeling that exists in

the business community that the introduction of a fixed Easter would be of great benefit, and can he therefore assure the House that some attempt will be made to overcome the particular difficulties which have stood in the way of His Majesty's Government in the past?

Mr. LLOYD: One difficulty has been that there is no unanimity among the nations, or among the Christian communities, on the subject.

Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: Will this matter be referred to the Committee of Thirteen?

Oral Answers to Questions — WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.

Mr. ADAMSON: asked the Home Secretary what Departmental or other committees are now considering the aspects of the existing law in regard to workmen's compensation; and whether they are considering methods by which the law and practice shall be brought into harmony with the principles of the International Labour Convention of 1925?

Mr. LLOYD: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the similar question on this subject by the hon. Member for the Shipley Division (Mr. Creech Jones) on the 31st of last month.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEETING, PADDINGTON BATHS.

Mr. GALLAGHER: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that, following a peace meeting, on Wednesday, 1st April, at Paddington Baths, two Blackshirts stood at tae hall door selling Fascist papers; that they shouted as the audience came out; that they obstructed the passage to the footpath and thrust their papers in the faces of those who were emerging; and that two policemen stood a few feet behind them, while several other policemen were in a garage across the street; and what the purpose of this joint demonstration of police and Fascists was?

Mr. LLOYD: Information had been received by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the meeting referred to was in progress at the Paddington Baths and, as a precautionary measure, one police sergeant and four police constables were sent to the vicinity of the


baths to deal with any possible incident which might occur. Other police were kept in reserve in a garage entrance near the baths so as to be readily available if required. About 10.30 p.m., when the meeting terminated, six Fascists were seen outside the hall, some with newspapers which they attempted to sell to the people leaving the meeting. Some of these persons showed resentment at the presence of the Fascists, who were advised by the police to leave the vicinity to avoid any possible disturbance. This request was complied with immediately, and there was no incident of any kind.

Mr. GALLACHER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when a Member of Parliament approached the policemen and drew their attention to the obvious provocation, he was treated very offensively and threateningly by the police, and can he say whether if the Member had intimated to the police that he was a Member of Parliament he would have received different treatment?

Mr. SPEAKER: That appears to be a hypothetical question.

Mr. STEPHEN: Can the Minister inform us why the Commissioner of Police did not take steps to prevent the Fascists selling their newspapers at that meeting, in view of the fact that he prevented the selling of Socialist literature at Mosley's meeting at the Albert Hall?

Mr. SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with this question.

Mr. STEPHEN: On a point of Order. Am I not entitled to an answer? I am submitting to you that my question is fair because it alleges that there has been discrimination by the police.

Mr. SPEAKER: The original question related to something which took place at Paddington Baths, but the hon. Member's question appears to relate to some other place.

Mr. STEPHEN: I am asking whether the Minister can explain why there was discrimination between the people holding this meeting and the people holding another meeting.

Mr. LLOYD: All these cases must be judged according to the circumstances. The duty of the police in these matters

is to avoid a breach of the peace, and their action on this occasion seems to me to show that they were very much alive to their duty.

Mr. GALLACHER: Is it not the case that Fascists were standing right in the doorway of the hall blocking the emergence of the audience and shoving their papers in front of their noses and that two policemen were standing behind the Fascists protecting them while they were carrying on the provocation?

Mr. LLOYD: No, Sir, it is not a fact. What is a fact is that, as I have said, the police advised these Fascists to move on when it was seen that there was resentment on the part of persons leaving the hall. It must be remembered that Fascists, Members of Parliament and everybody else in this country are equal before the law.

Mr. GALLACHER: Is the Minister aware that I was the last speaker, and was one of the last to leave the hall; that when I came out of the hall the Fascists were at the door; that the police were standing behind them; and that I went over to the police? How, then, can the police have removed the Fascists while the audience were coming out?

Mr. LLOYD: I said that when resentment was expressed, the police advised the Fascists to move on.

Oral Answers to Questions — ACCUSED PERSONS (BAIL).

Mr. CREECH JONES: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the numerous cases in which bail is refused because of objection by the police, he will instruct the police not to object to the grant of bail except on the ground that it is not probable that the accused will appear to take his trial?

Mr. LLOYD: It is, of course, most desirable that the magistrates shall make full use of their powers to grant bail. The function of the police is to bring to the notice of the court information or considerations relevant to the discretion which the court has to exercise. My right hon. Friend has no reason to think that the police fail to assist the courts to the best of their ability, and he has no authority to issue such an instruction as is suggested.

Oral Answers to Questions — COURTS OF SUMMARY JURIS DICTION.

Lieut. - Commander FLETCHER: asked the Home Secretary whether he will consider the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the whole question of the magistracy with a view to rectifying the many existing anomalies and securing a more even and efficient administration of justice?

Mr. LLOYD: It seems doubtful whether a Royal Commission with so wide a field of reference as is suggested would be the most effective method of attaining the object which the hon. Member has in view. But consideration is being given to the question whether inquiries might profitably be instituted into specific matters of special importance connected with the organisation and procedure of the courts of summary jurisdiction.

Lieut.-Commander FLETCHER: Will the Under-Secretary ask his right bon. Friend to bear in mind the fact that there is a very large number of aged and infirm magistrates who really never sit; and also the very varying sentences which are passed for practically identical offences, mostly motoring offences?

Oral Answers to Questions — DEMONSTRATIONS (KENSINGTON).

Sir W. DAVISON: asked the Home Secretary whether he will instruct the police to see that no demonstrations of any kind are in future held in the vicinity of Thurloe Square, Kensington, seeing that this is a residential neighbourhood with narrow thoroughfares quite unsuited to the holding of public meetings?

Mr. LLOYD: My right hon. Friend has no power to issue any such instructions to the police.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is my hon. Friend aware that the residents of Thurloe Square only desire the peaceful occupation of their homes; and will he see that they have not again to appeal to their Parliamentary representative in order to get protection against violent demonstrators?

Mr. E. SMITH: Has the hon. Gentleman's Department received any further evidence which would warrant a reconsideration of the demand for, a public

inquiry into what took place in this square?

Mr. LLOYD: It is the duty of the police to take such precautionary measures as are reasonably necessary in the circumstances to prevent breaches of the peace in the streets and to prevent obstruction of the thoroughfare; but regard must be had, as has already been brought to our notice this afternoon, to the right of free speech in this country.

Sir W. DAVISON: Surely not a right of free speech in a narrow street in a residential locality.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMAMENTS MANUFACTURE (PROFITS).

Mr. HARDIE: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in the case of armaments orders now being carried out, any provision has been made for the limitation of profits in such cases?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. W. S. Morrison): Where contracts are placed by competitive tender, it is the normal practice to accept the lowest tender, other things being equal, provided that information in the Department's possession shows that the price tendered is reasonable. As stated by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 12th March, where it is impossible to secure effective competitive tendering, it is the policy of His Majesty's Government that contracts should be settled on the basis of allowing a fair and reasonable profit, having regard to the circumstances of each case. This course has been adopted in regard to munition orders now being carried out, as for example the orders placed in connection with the expansion of the Royal Air Force.

Mr. HARDIE: How do they arrive at what is a reasonable cost, in the absence of competitive estimates?

Mr. MORRISON: The hon. Member will find the Government's procedure described in the answer given by my right hon. Friend on the 12th March.

Mr. HARDIE: Having read that answer, may I ask whether, in the absence of competitive estimates, it is not the business of the Government to


determine what the price should be, from the knowledge which the officials in the Department have?

Mr. MORRISON: That is the procedure that is followed. In the absence of competitive tenders, all the circumstances of the case are taken into account and the price is fixed so as to award what is regarded as a fair profit in the circumstances.

Mr. THORNE: Are the Government entitled to examine, at the completion of the contract, the amount of the costs in comparison with the tender?

Mr. MORRISON: Yes, Sir. The Government have access to all the books and all the information required for fixing the profit fairly.

Mr. HARDIE: What is a fair profit?

Mr. MORRISON: That depends upon the circumstances in each case. It is necessary to take into account the conditions of each particular case.

County
Marriages registered.


1914.
1920.
1925.
1930.
1931.
1932.
1933.
1934.
1935.




Argyll
…
…
305
312
250
239
276
297
278
271
275


Caithness
…
…
144
210
151
140
133
129
140
154
164


Inverness
…
…
403
545
391
446
441
475
459
435
469


Boss and Cromarty
…
277
426
248
227
231
234
210
263
240


Sutherland
…
…
41
74
45
54
58
50
44
61
49


Similar figures for the islands mentioned are not available and could only be complied by the expenditure of a considerable amount of labour.

PERSONS AGED 16 TO 64.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can furnish an estimate of the number of persons aged 16 to 64 years in the middle of each of the years 1929, 1931 and 1935, in Scotland?

Sir G. COLLINS: The figures are as follow:


1929
3,070,000*


1931
3,101,108†


1935
3,185,000*


*Estimate for middle of year.


†Census figure (26th April, 1931).

Oral Answers to Questions — BILL REPORTED.

HEREFORD CORPORATION BILL.

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

SUPPLY.

The following Motion stood upon the Order Paper in the name of the Prime Minister:
That this House will, To-morrow, resolve itself into the Committee of Supply.

Mr. G. HARDIE: On a point of Order. I desire to ask your guidance as to whether any decisions taken to-day will in any way affect the decisions taken last Wednesday? The question that has been arising since Wednesday has been: if a decision has been arrived at in the House, how is it possible to go back upon that unless you recommit the whole matter to the House, which cannot be done under the Rules? May I ask your Ruling as to whether any decisions now taken can affect the decisions taken last Wednesday?

Mr. SPEAKER: The only decision that can be taken to-day is the Question before the House, "That this House will, To-morrow, resolve itself into the Committee of Supply."

Mr. HARDIE: Is not this the first step towards reversing the decision of last Wednesday?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see how that can arise.

Mr. MABANE: May I ask for your guidance, Sir, on the scope of the discussion to-day? I regret that I have not given you longer notice. The Motion is, "That this House will, To-morrow, resolve itself into the Committee of Supply." The last occasion on which such a Motion was submitted to the House was on 11th April, 1923, and the Speaker of that day on many occasions in the course of the discussion said that it was out of order to stray beyond the narrow scope of that Motion. He made the point that Members who wished to raise general topics could raise them on the main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." On five or six occasions in that Debate, which was eventually adjourned in the early evening, the Speaker gave very definite Rulings on that point. For example, referring to a Member who was dealing with the general topic he said:
That is quite out of order. We cannot enter now into these general questions. A Debate on this subject will take place to-morrow."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th April, 1923; col. 1262, Vol. 162.]

I notice that on 8th September, 193 there was a Resolution that the House resolve itself into Committee of Ways and Means, and a general Debate on the crisis took place on that Motion. I do not think that is entirely parallel, because this is a Motion preliminary to another, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." I ask for your guidance so that the House may know whether on this occasion it is definitely going to adopt a course at variance with the course that the House adopted on the last occasion when this took place. I ask whether, if we adopt this course, it may be possible in future for Members to challenge the matter that the House resolve itself into Committee of Supply, and raise a general Debate on that subject?

Mr. EDE: May I draw your attention, Sir, to one difference between the position on 11th April, 1923, and the position in which we find ourselves today? On that occasion the present Prime Minister, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, announced that he would make a statement on the matter on which the House was defeated on the following day on the renewed Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." Your predecessor in the Chair said, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) was getting to the Question which had previously been before the House:
I do not think the hon. Member is entitled to ask the nature of the statement that will be made to-morrow, because that would open up other questions. He is entitled to ask that when the Question is moved and the Amendment is moved tomorrow a further Debate will take place."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th April, 1923; col. 1258, Vol. 162.]
The Prime Minister stated on Thursday that on this Motion to-day he intended to make a statement dealing with the issue on which he was defeated on the last occasion. May I further remind you that on the last occasion, although there was no doubt what was the matter before the House, the Amendment in fact had not been moved, and it was not moved until the second Motion, and I suggest that to-day, in view of the notice that the Prime Minister has given us, we are in an entirely different position from the unfortunate occasion in 1923 when


we were being led by the present Lord President of the Council and the Debate did not proceed for very long.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am practically asked the same question that I was asked on Friday in regard to what will be in order on the present occasion. Then I gave the Ruling that any question dealing with the Civil Estimates could be raised on this Motion, but that questions with reference to the Service Estimates and matters relating to the Defence Forces could not be raised. That is the Ruling that I gave then, and it is the same that I shall give now. The occasion to which the hon. Member referred and which took place in 1931 was "That the House resolve itself into Committee of Ways and Means." I take that to be very much the same as this Motion. I give practically the same Ruling that I gave on that occasion, that any question can be raised, but on this occasion with the exceptions which I have named.

Mr. EDE: I understand your Ruling is that on the Motion that the Prime Minister is about to move it will be open to any hon. Member who may catch your eye to raise any question that arises out of the Civil Estimates. It is usual, on a matter like a Motion for the Adjournment, for it to be arranged that the discussion shall take place in sections so that there shall be an orderly Debate and one subject fully disposed of before we proceed to another. Will there be any arrangement to-day by which we may be assured that those who wish to discuss the constitutional issues raised by the Prime Minister's speech will be taken consecutively and those who like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) and the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) as one gathers from the Press wish to raise foreign affairs will also be taken in a separate section of the Debate so that there may be some order and continuity in our discussion?

Mr. SPEAKER: I will do my best to secure an orderly Debate.

Miss WILKINSON: When we have taken a vote, assuming that the Debate goes on until 11 o'clock, will the decision, whichever way it may go, have any conceivable relation whatever to the Amendment that I moved on Wednesday?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Division, if there is one, will be on the Question whether this House resolve itself into Committee of Supply.

Mr. STEPHEN: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister is asking for what amounts to a Vote of Confidence, will not the discussion be in effect a Vote of Censure limited by the fact that it must be connected with the Civil Service?

Lord HUGH CECIL: Is not the Motion necessary in order that the business of Supply may be transacted?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is the reason for it.

CIVIL SERVICE (WOMEN, PAY).

3.59 p.m.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I beg to move,
That this House will, To-morrow, resolve itself into the Committee of Supply.
My Noble Friend has, as usual, put his finger on the point. Hon. Members will have noticed that among the Orders of the Day, most exceptionally, following the precedent of last Friday and Thursday, there is no Order for Supply Committee, without which the list of Orders seems to be incomplete. That incompleteness we have to remedy before the business of the House can be properly proceeded with. Events are fresh in Members' minds as to the cause that has led to this Motion, and they will remember that the Government suffered a defeat and are paying the usual consequences of that defeat. There is nothing novel in a Government being defeated. Hardly any Government in history has escaped that during the course of its life, some more and some less. I remember it happening even to Mr. Asquith's well-drilled myrmidons, and I remember it happening to Mr. Bonar Law and more than once to the serried hosts of the Lord President. The action to be taken in each case by the Government must depend on the circumstances of the defeat. Those circumstances, of course, vary. There is one thing, I think, on which this present House may congratulate itself. I remember very well more than one occcation when a similar event took place, and I remember that the House in trying to make out what had happened,


broke up in disorder and had to be suspended by Mr. Speaker. I remember that occurring more than once. Let us congratulate ourselves that the other afternoon at all events we avoided that form of what I always regard as a most ignominious procedure on the part of this House.
There are cases, of course, in which a Government defeat is a clear indication that the Government has lost the confidence both of the House and of the country, and in that case there is but one course for it, that is either to resign or to dissolve. I do not take the view that last Wednesday's proceedings, important as they may have been, showed that the Government has lost the confidence either of the House or of the country. At the other end of the scale some defeats have been, as it were, accidental, such as snap divisions. I remember taking part in a great many in the time when my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was Chancellor of the Exchequer. When that happens, whether it be on a matter of business or on some question which the Government does not regard as one of principle or one of great importance, it is sometimes possible for a Government, as Governments have done, to adopt the Resolution of the House. But in any case the question of resignation or dissolution is never present to their minds. Intermediate between these two extreme cases you have a case where a Government is defeated on a point of substance and yet believes itself to retain the confidence of the House and of the country. It is in accordance with the principles and the traditions of the House that in those cases the Government should allow the matter to be discussed in the House, to see whether, by taking the line that they do take, if it be against the line that was taken at the particular time in the House, they do or do not enjoy the confidence of the House.
It was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman who leads the Opposition that it is the duty of the Government to give effect forthwith to what he described as the will of the House as expressed in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson). If the purpose of the Amendment were carried out the result, of course, would be an increase in

expenditure, and the House by its own Standing Orders has put it out of its own power to effect such an increase except on the recommendation of the Government in power at the time. I would begin by saying that the principle involved in the Amendment is one which the Government cannot accept. I propose to tell the House, as shortly as I can consistently with clarity, why the Government cannot accept the Amendment. We must ask for the support of the House as a matter of confidence. Those who no longer have, or perhaps those who never have had confidence in us, will of course register their votes against us, but I hope that those who still have confidence in the Government will take the opposite course and support the Government in the Lobby to-night.
I want to examine this question with great care, because it is one which appeals to a great many Members, and a very good case can be made out for it. It is a question with which I have been familiar ever since I have been in any Government. It is a question which comes up regularly from time to time. But there are still, I believe, overwhelming reasons why this step, so strongly advocated in some sections of the community, is not a progressive but a retrograde step; and in my view the time is not nearly ripe for it, and, I believe that putting it into effect now would be to throw back a great deal of the progress that has been made by women over recent years. The House may not agree with me; they will at least, I know, listen to my reasons, and I have no doubt that those who speak from the benches opposite will put their case as strongly as it can be put.
I suppose there is no more outstanding characteristic of these post-war years than the extent to which women of all classes have entered into the field of employment—into fields of employment that before the War were considered more or less peculiar to men. It is often said that some at least of the unemployment among men is due to the fact that in their view women have taken their places. I believe that the evidence on this point is inconclusive. It is very difficult to form a clear opinion on that. I think that women have tended very largely to come into occupations which are themselves characteristic of fresh


social development. Distribution, for instance, in its modern forms has given vastly increased employment since the War. Then there are catering, entertainments and so on. The actual substitution of women for men has not been, perhaps, as great as some men would say it has been. However this may be, it is very significant; this feeling that numbers of men are unemployed because women have entered the employment field is very widespread, and my own view is that it would be most unwise to ignore it. The progress of women's employment, as I have said, has been remarkable. This has been the case in all branches or rather in many branches of industry, in the professions, and perhaps more than anywhere in the Civil Service. There are now many women doctors, barristers, architects; women are in all kinds of professions where it would have been impossible to have foreseen a generation ago that they would have entered.
It is quite impossible yet to try to form a judgment as to how far, in competition with men, women in professions have been successful from their point of view. I do not think that the evidence yet exists. It may well be that the admission of women into certain forms of employment has not been as fast as many of the advocates of what is called freedom for women would have liked to see, nor as fast, perhaps, as pioneers of the women's movement expected to see it when the emancipation of women had become an accomplished fact. It is true to say, and I think that every one of my own generation will agree with me in saying, that the progress they have made has been most remarkable. I think everyone will agree with that. It is uneven, of course. It is uneven in the representation of women in this House. Another department of life where it is very uneven—I would commend this to hon. Members opposite—is in the trade union movement. So far as I am aware scarcely any of the principal officials of that movement are women. Even in the textile trades, where a large proportion of the operatives are women, that is true. I am told that in the cotton weaving industry, where 70 per cent. of the operatives are women, there is not one woman on the central executive. I shall have something more to say later about this question of the progress of women

in the field of employment, but I do want to say a word now about women in the Civil Service.
I said a few minutes ago that in the Civil Service their progress had been remarkable. The Civil Service has done a great deal to facilitate the employment of women under conditions that, judged by all accepted rules, are very favourable, and the figures, of which some hon. Members may be unaware, are very remarkable. In the common entry grades there are 55,000 men and 12,000 women, a very much larger proportion in that work than, I should imagine, exists in any branch of commerce or industry where the openings are equal in this country. There is complete equality in the examinations for these grades, and since the War women have been admitted in the open competitive examinations for she main classes of the Civil Service on the same terms as men. Those that are successful are given full opportunities. They are equally eligible for promotion with men, and their claims are considered in the same way as the claims of men. In these respects I submit that the Civil Service is already far ahead of most outside practice. I want to make that point clear, because I shall have something to say later of outside practice.
What we have to consider to-day is whether or not this is the time to make another very considerable advance, placing the Civil Service still further ahead of the Current practice in the country as a whole. I want to utter one caution here. Probably every Member of the House, certainly anyone who knows anything about it, is justifiably proud of our Civil Service, but I do not feel that we should be acting wisely in the long run if we were to attempt to establish for the Service as a whole, or for any parts of it, whether divided by sex or otherwise, conditions much more favourable than those obtaining in the country as a whole, so as to call for criticism on the part of the general public. If I am net entirely wrong, there is already a very general feeling that civil servants occupy a privileged position, and there is very great competition to enter their ranks. The general public have to find the cost of that Service, and if you put the cost of that Service considerably higher than similar services elsewhere, I think you might


easily get a feeling, I will not say of jealousy, but a feeling that the Civil Service, for whatever good reason it may be, was getting a very much better deal in regard to their conditions and wages than are obtainable by any other class. I do not think that that feeling exists to-day to any serious extent. I only say that, if you make the margin so great, I believe that to get a feeling like that would not be a good thing for the country.
There have been Debates in this House on the particular subject which formed the Amendment in question, and I think it was the last Labour Government—[Interruption.] There is nothing funny about this; I am not trying to score a point. I was not sure whether it was in 1931, but it was before the Labour Government went out of office that a Royal Commission was set up under the chairmanship of a dear old friend of mine, Lord Tomlin, one of the best and most fair-minded in our long list of judges in this country. That Commission consisted of 14 members, all persons of great experience, and five of them were women. They were of diverse political beliefs, and they had a wide and diversified experience. They devoted considerable time to what I have already admitted even now is not an easy question, and they were unable to come to any conclusion. They were hopelessly divided, like the earlier MacDonnell Commission, and in the words of their own report in paragraph 457, they say:
We were divided almost equally into those who are not prepared to recommend the introduction of equal pay and those in favour of such a recommendation.
So, unfortunately, we have no definite guidance from an authoritative Royal Commission, and we may fairly say, at any rate with regard to that Commission, that those witnesses who advocated the scheme failed to convince the Commission of the justice or the equity of it. I do not want this afternoon to take up any time in dealing with the financial aspect of the question, but I would like to point out—and here again I am coming to one of my objections as the head of the Government to bringing this reform, if you like, into force—that it would be quite wrong to assume that the extra cost would be measured by the figure that represents the immediate application of the increased wage to women. The figure of

that was given, if I remember aright, by the Royal Commission at some 3,000,000 a year. But there is an historical fact—the differentiation of the rate of wages between men and women generally. Rightly or wrongly, it has persisted for a very long time, and I think that it would be difficult to imagine that the men in the Civil Service, or indeed in any other employment in which the principle of equal pay was applied, would remain content with equal pay. Sooner or later the demand would inevitably come for the restoration of the margin as between men and women, which, in their opinion, would be required for the responsibility of men as heads of households. Recognition of this fact is implied in some very interesting observations made by my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) when she pointed out only last, Wednesday that
those who are putting forward a demand for equal pay for equal work without coupling it with a demand for family allowances are either walking into a morass or running their heads into a trap."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st April, 1936; col. 2037, Vol. 310.]
You get it at both ends, apparently. It seems to me that if we took this step all that we should do in the long run would be to put up the cost of the employment of women irrespective of the Fair Wages principle, and thereafter find ourselves involved in an additional cost for the men. We should then have back again unequal pay, which is the difficulty that you are up against to-day, and you would have unequal pay on a higher all-round level, and, in the meantime, in my view—and I am only submitting my view—you would merely have inverted the sex differentiation. I have already referred to the remarkable progress which the movement for the wider employment of women has attained in this country in a comparatively short space of time, and however logical it may appear to the leaders of the feminist movement to demand equal pay, I suggest to them that it would be wise not to be in too great a hurry, and not to try to go too fast.
I feel extremely doubtful, even if this were done in the Civil Service, if the example would be followed in outside employments. I think that the indications are to the contrary, and the greater probability to my mind is that the fear that the Government's example might be


used to press them to adopt the principle would lead many employers who may now be disposed to offer employment to women, and even to go out of their way, as I hope they will, to offer employment to educated women, to refrain from doing so, and instead, to restrict employment as far as possible to men. I believe the direct and indeed, in my view, the fairly quick result of this step would be the lessening of the demand for women.
The hon. Member, whose speech I regret I did not hear, but I have read it, was good enough to quote some remarks which I made in aid of the Building Fund for Newnham College. I adhere to every word that I said, and she may remember—I do not wish to repeat myself, and I do not know how fully I was reported—that I did make an appeal to industry and commerce in this country to make room for educated women in the same way as the Civil Service has done. Many women who are interested in the higher education of women have, I know, some-times felt regret that the sphere of work for that kind of woman is not as wide as it might be, or as, I believe, it ought to be. The teaching profession, of course, will absorb as many of the educated women as it can, but there is much scope for them in this country in fields which so far have not been opened with the same liberality and the same willingness as the fields in the Civil Service. I have just interposed those few observations and would only repeat again, that I am firmly convinced that the result of putting into effect the Amendment of the hon. Member for Jarrow would be to circumscribe rather than to enlarge those very opportunities to give facilities for which I appealed as recently as one day last week.
Time will show how far circumstances may so change and how far public opinion may so assert itself as to render the adoption of this principle wise, but I am satisfied that public opinion is not ripe for the change, and that to force the issue now would be to retard further progress, even if it did not, in fact, mean going back. I should doubt—we may hear this afternoon—whether the Opposition would be prepared to put the terms of that Amendment into force if they were returned to office. They have not,

as far as I know, made any attempt to do it, but they would say that probably they had never had an independent majority. Perhaps they will tell us this afternoon, if they do have an independent majority, whether they are going to follow this principle in the Civil Service.
We, for our part, believe that the right course, and the one most likely in the long run to be in the best interests of women, is not to depart now from the policy pursued by this Government and by previous Governments successively. We are satisfied that, as a result of adherence to this principle, we are able to secure an adequate supply of candidates and to provide for those who are successful conditions of work satisfactory to them and remuneration that is satisfactory and that compares favourably with those obtaining ire every part of the country. For those reasons, bearing in mind the grave responsibility of the Government in a matter of this kind, I feel unable to do other than I have stated in the House this afternoon, and I hope that the House will consider that the Government have taken the right course at this time, and will endorse it by their vote in the Lobby.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: The Prime Minister has given us the reasons why the Government do not propose to act on the expressed will of the House. I listened to what he said, and it struck me that if that speech had to be made it should have been made last Wednesday. We are not here this afternoon to re-try that issue. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury stated the Government's point of view last Wednesday. I think he is as good a special pleader as the Prime Minister, and that he introduced as many irrelevant reasons and avoided the main issue quite as adroitly. What is the issue? The issue is not equal pay for equal work. The issue is that the Government have sustained a defeat, and we want to know what is their attitude to the House. No doubt the Government have their Members whipped up to-day, but we are concerned with those who attend the Debates, and not with those who do not attend them. This House is a debating Chamber—not a polling booth. The Government's business is to carry not merely a number of votes in the Lobby, but to carry the argument in the House


and be able to commend their Measures and their actions to the House. When they fail to do that it is no good to obtain afterwards a whipped up majority to give them some sort of absolution. The fact is that they have lost the Debate.
I want to raise one or two issues. I do not intend to discuss the matter, which was fully debated last Wednesday, but there is a serious constitutional issue raised. The power of the House of Commons has been built up on the control of the purse and on the principle that redress of grievances should precede Supply. The right hon. Gentleman skated rather lightly over the kind of defeat that he sustained. It is not very often that the Government are beaten on Supply. I believe it is without precedent for the Government to be beaten on Supply, without going some way to meet the views of the House. The Government have entirely declined to meet the views of the House. A definite grievance was brought forward in a constitutional way. Let us remember whose grievance it is. It is the grievance of the civil servant. It is all very well to say that the civil servant is in a privileged position, but he is in an unprivileged position as a citizen. It is not open to him to take political action. He is not entitled to stump the country to raise this issue. He must work in the ordinary constitutional way. The civil servant has done so. This is not the first time that this question has been raised, and it is not the first time that the House has decided the principle. What we did on Wednesday, despite the second vote, was to decide in favour of the principle.

Lord H. CECIL: No.

Mr. ATTLEE: With all due respect to the right hon. and Noble Lord the Member for the University of Oxford (Lord H. Cecil) I accept what Mr. Speaker told us.

Mr. SPEAKER: The vote that was given on Wednesday, as I explained over and over again, was preliminary to the other vote.

Mr. ATTLEE: The Motion was that certain words should stand part, but an Amendment had been moved, and I understood you to say that a vote against the words standing part might be taken as approval of the principle of the Amendment.

Mr. SPEAKER: That may be a matter of opinion, but the vote taken was really a preliminary, and was not a vote on the Amendment itself.

Mr. ATTLEE: I was telling the Noble Lord that I preferred your opinion to his. In 1920 and again last week this principle has been decided by the House. It was remitted to the Tomlin Commission. They disagreed. The civil servants then brought the matter before the Whitley Council. They were told by the official side: "This is not a matter for the Whitley Council. It is a matter of policy. It must be decided by the Government. It must go to the House of Commons." The civil servants cannot call a strike. They come to the House. When the proposal is brought before the House and the House votes on it, the Prime Minister says: "No. We are not going to take the views of the House." Because, I suppose, the Government did not happen to have all their Members here. That is an extraordinary position to take up.
The Prime Minister has hardly tried to deal with the position. It was no snap Division. It was a. Division on going into Committee of Supply, and the Motion that was moved had been put down weeks before. Everyone knew that it was coming on, but somehow or other the Government had not their Members present. Therefore, apparently, the vote is not to count. If the Government win in a small House it is all right, but if they lose in a small House the vote does not count. I should like a. little guidance. I do not know whether it will be my duty 'as Leader of the Opposition in future to ask, in regard to the business of the day, whether the Government consider that they will have enough Members on the Floor of the House to make an effective decision. I do not know where the Members will be, whether they will have to be present in the Chamber, or somewhere within the precincts of the House, or whether they will have to give proxies to the Prime Minister.
I do not say that the right hon. Gentleman is not entitled on behalf of the Government to say that they do not accept the will of the House. The only thing to do is to challenge the position of the Government. The issue to-day, as the Prime Minister has said, is not the


specific Motion that we discussed last Wednesday, but the question of confidence in the Government. It is, therefore, worth while to look at the vote on which the Government were defeated. It was not an isolated vote. It was not an occasion on which it could be suggested that most of the Conservative Members thought that it was a private Members' day and that they did not need to turn up. The fact is that the Government majorities have been steadily falling for weeks. They have a majority nominally of between 240 And 250, but during the last two months their majorities have been two-figure majorities. Instance after instance could be given. I will not trouble the House with a long list, but I will give a few. On the Cotton Spinning Bill the majority was 23. On the Bill giving maintenance grants for school children the majority was 59; on the British Shipping Subsidy Bill, 71; on the Milk Subsidy Bill, 73; on the Civil Estimates Department Vote, 92; and on the Air Navigation Bill, 55.
It is the business of the Government to have their Members here. This is the place where issues are debated, and it was obvious that sooner or later the Government were bound to go down and suffer a defeat. All these circumstances are symptomatic of the lack of grip of the Government. Only a few months ago we had a General Election and the Government came back with a big majority, a much bigger majority than they were entitled to on their strength in the country. One would have expected the Government to be full of life and vigour, but they show all the symptoms of senile decay. Looking back on the past five months one would compare it not with beginning of a, new Government but with the last five months of the Balfour Administration. I remember reading then of the difficulty of the Government getting their Members to vote. There was a cartoon in "Punch" in which the Conservative party was represented as a horse, and there was a caption that they could not get it along because it was dinner-hour. There was the same general feeling throughout the country that the Government had lost credit. That is the issue to-day. Have the Government the confidence of the House? Have they the confidence in the country? Have they any confidence in themselves? Have

their Members any confidence in each other? It looks to me as though the osseous deficiency which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) attributed to the Lord President of the Council was infectious. It seems to have spread throughout the whole Administration.
The thing about last Wednesday's Debate was that except for the Financial Secretary to the Treasury only one hon. Member took the Government's point of view, the Noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl). That is not an isolated instance of lack of support. It has been common in the last few months for no voice to be raised in support of a proposition save from the Treasury Bench. Let me recall a few instances. When the Government introduced their great social programme, the only item in their social programme, their great Education Bill, a post-dated cheque, the only hon. Member who gave approval was the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville). When they introduced their Palestine police the Secretary of State for the Colonies stated the Government's point of view, but there was a chorus of dissent from all quarters of the House. The only supporter was the hon. and gallant Member for Hexham (Colonel Clifton Brown). I do not know whether it is a case of Government economy in speakers and that they are to have only one hon. Member speaking in support of each Motion. At any rate, that is becoming the rule rather than the exception.
Minister after Minister comes along and fails dismally. There is a. general impression that the Government have no policy Everyone remembers the last Debate on the distressed areas. The Lord President of the Council was put up to state the Government's views. It was unkindly and caustically said in the Press that the right hon. Gentleman was put up because he was a good man to make a speech when there was nothing to say. There was no support from any side for the Government's point of view, and the right hon. Gentleman has been withdrawn from the firing line ever since. Then there was the other day the resignation of the Minister for Thought, the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord Eustace Percy). We do not know what he really thought, but we do know that apparently he thinks the same as the Government on foreign affairs. That


assurance was given specifically. Are we, therefore, to assume that he differs from them on home affairs. Presumably he left because there was no policy. There is no policy.
Then we have the Minister of Labour. He sits there and he tells us that spring has come. No new regulations come from him. It is a most remarkable thing. On the 5th February last year the unemployment regulations were withdrawn. The Lord President of the Council was then Prime Minister and, always optimistic, he told us in May of last year that they were making good progress with the new regulations. They have been going on ever since then, but nothing has resulted. The Minister of Labour is hopeful because spring has come. He is thankful for a late spring. He is hopeful for a late summer. Still nothing comes. A lurid light is thrown on the real condition of the unemployed in Sir John Orr's Report. I quote from the "News Letter," a journal which is devoted to the interests of the Government and supposed to reflect the views of the Lord President of the Council. It talks of the economic paradox that has long stared us in the face:
On the one hand, farmers unable to sell what they produce and, on the other hand people lacking the means and often the judgment to buy the food required for good health. It is clear that public opinion will not acquiesce for long in the wait-and-see attitude, which was all the Government was able to adopt.
What is the Government's attitude on the condition of the people? Have they anything to offer people who, according to Sir John Orr's Report, want food? Have they anything to offer except bombs and guns? Meanwhile the Government continue to flout this House. There are constant complaints that we cannot get replies from the Government. Very often the Government Bench is left untenanted except for a row of Under-Secretaries and Whips who are not entitled to speak on policy. The House is asked night after night to sit after 11 o'clock and to very late hours because Ministers cannot explain business. On the Air Navigation Bill the other night the complaints did not come from this side of the House only hut from all over the House. Where are Cabinet Ministers? They are outside squabbling about foreign affairs.
Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Government still have the confidence of the country? The "Daily Mail" does not think so. I do not know how far these articles are inspired, but that is one line of attack, not one with which I agree. There are so many lines of attack on the Government that almost every one can line up with one of them. This is only natural, because the Government move in so many different directions on such a wobbly course that they are bound to bump into someone at every turn. Perhaps criticism is most vocal in the sphere of foreign affairs. Ever since the Hoare-Laval disclosures the Government has been under a cloud. It has shown an utter lack of confidence in itself. There is an utter lack of policy. We all recall the occasion when we discussed that matter. There was a great lack of confidence in this House and the Government supporters were only rallied by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) waving the old school tie. What was the issue there? The Government were returned on a definite policy, on a strong League policy, but they turned round and proposed to make an agreement which was destructive of collective security. The country revolted, and the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) was thrown overboard. The Government on that occasion accepted the verdict of public opinion. What we want to know is what they have done since? It is five months since the League of Nations decided on oil sanctions. The Abyssinians are still suffering the most intense cruelties and barbarities at the hands of an aggressor, declared so by the League of Nations. What are the Government doing about it? They must take their share of responsibility for what is happening to the Abyssinians.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: So must you.

Mr. ATTLEE: An early strong line of action would have prevented the war; that is the verdict of every qualified observer. Had the Government done their duty and carried out the policy which was laid down by the right hon. Member for Chelsea, the war would have been stopped now. It is not a question of whether Signor Mussolini will beat the Negus of Abyssinia but whether an


aggressor will beat the League of Nations. That is the serious issue. The issue is big enough if it be only the Abyssinian people and their suffering, but behind that lies the whole question whether we can build up a system of collective security. The Government's action in dealing only with France and not with the League made the very worst of the situation. They allowed Signor Mussolini to represent it as a quarrel between Great Britain and Italy. I ask the Government to say this evening what they intend to do at the next meeting which is to take place with regard to Abyssinia? All the time oil is still flowing to Italy, some of it perhaps from British companies, some from American companies and some from Allied countries and that oil is being used to kill women and children in Abyssinia. We cannot escape responsibility.
The Government may say that they are much taken up with what Herr Hitler is doing, a much more difficult task. But Herr Hitler's action is the result of the failure of the League in the Italo-Abyssinia affair. Here was a clear chance there for the Government to have united public opinion and have given a lead which would have built up collective security and shown that any aggressor would have to face a united League. They threw the chance away. There is the greatest danger from the Government's policy. They have chosen to stand mainly on Locarno. You cannot call in Germany which has taken action in breach of Locarno, or Italy, an impossible preserver of law and order, and the result of what the Government are doing is to bring this country, with France and Belgium, face to face with Germany. That is exactly a position in which we demand that this country should not be placed. Locarno is far too narrow a basis. We ask that this country should bring in the whole strength of the League for the preservation of law and order. The Government are proposing to take some action in the event of aggression. We say that this should not be the concern of Great Britain alone, but of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and they can only be brought in through the League because they are outside Locarno. We say that it ought not to be the action of the British

Commonwealth of Nations alone, but should be the concern of the whole League; not of Western Europe alone or of Eastern Europe, or of Southern Europe, but of the whole League.
The menace of war has grown throughout the last four years owing to neglect of leadership on the part of the Government. They have allowed the initiative to pass out of the hands of the great Western democracies into the hands of dictators. It is such an incredibly stupid policy, even from the point of view of one section. If you take it on the most narrow national and imperial lines, the sure shield of peace is the League of Nations, not alliances. From all kinds of persons one gets complaints of the Government's policy. I got the complaint to-day from a man who told me that he had voted regularly for the Conservative Government and at the last election did so because he had every faith in the Prime Minister. He could not make out what was happening. Today the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) could not make up his mind as to what was the Government's policy.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not want to misrepresent me. I said that while hon. Members in all parties in the House were aware of the Government's policy, there were very grave misrepresentations of it in the country, largely owing to the misrepresentations on the part of certain Members of the Opposition.

Mr. ATTLEE: If the hon. Member will look up his question he will find that he has taken the first prize for embroidery. The Government rests for its popularity on the belief in the good intentions of the Foreign Secretary. Whatever mechanical vote we may have this evening it will not express a great sense of confidence in the Government on the part of hon. Members, and I am sure it will not express a great feeling of confidence in the country. The fact is the Government are suffering from the effects of their own manoeuvres. They played a confidence trick on the country at the last General Election and it has been found out. They are in just the same state of decay as the Conservative Government was at the beginning of the century after the Khaki election. These elections always fall back on their authors. The


Government is also suffering from another very serious defect. It is a coalition, which involves bringing in all kinds of persons to represent particular sections and the need for retaining them in positions of importance. In such circumstances it is impossible to get any clear-cut decisions on policy, you get a balancing this way and that. In these difficult times it is a danger to the country and to the world to have a British Government which pursues a policy of drift.

4.59 p.m.

Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition in the concluding passages of his speech referred to the terrible situation with which this country and the League of Nations are confronted in regard to the dispute between Italy and Abyssinia. In the first speech I made in this Parliament I drew attention to the fact that Italy was even then successfully defying 50 nations. It is true that we were able to congratulate ourselves that to some extent the League of Nations was working with a coherence and efficiency which it had not previously displayed, but as I pointed out then—and it is still true—it was an even more significant fact that one resolute country was proving itself capable of defying 50 irresolute countries.
It is not, in my submission, the policy of sanctions that has failed. When the Leader of the Opposition was speaking, the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) interrupted him, and said that the Leader of the Opposition was as much responsible as the Government for the failure of the efforts of the League and for the continuance of the war in Abyssinia. I believe that to be profoundly untrue. It is not the policy of sanctions which has failed; it is the resolution of the Government which has failed. It was that fatal error of the Hoare-Laval conversations, which I ventured to think at the time might well prove, and which I am still afraid may prove, irreparable. It is impossible to blame the present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He succeeded to a situation which had already been compromised. Perhaps it may prove to have been hopelessly compromised. But the situation was that the momentum of the sanctions policy had been slowed down, and his efforts have never yet sufficed to restore its momentum. In November the Committee of

Eighteen of the League agreed unanimously in principle to the oil, iron and steel and coal sanctions. The report of the Experts Committee a few weeks ago showed that if those sanctions had been imposed in November the war would have ended by now, and it would have ended with the defeat of the Italian aggression.

Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: On a point of Order. Is this furious attack upon the League of Nations which we are hearing now from the right hon. Baronet, and which we have already heard from the Leader of the Opposition, in order?

Mr. SPEAKER: I did not hear anything which was out of order.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: It is not the League of Nations I am attacking, but those Governments which have failed to uphold the League. It is shameful that the Government should stand idly by while Italy machine-guns Red Cross workers, bombs open towns, kills and maims the Abyssinian peasants with yperite, a deadly and torturing gas. Italy piles lawless outrage upon ruthless aggressions and for four months the Government have allowed themselves to be fobbed off with one excuse after another for not taking those sanctions which alone can be effective in stopping this aggression. I refer, of course, to the oil sanction, to the iron and steel and coal sanctions, to the embargo upon shipping, to the direct assistance which ought to have been given to the gallant Abyssinian army fighting for its freedom—

Mr. BAXTER: You mean war.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I mean direct helps I do not mean war. I mean exactly what I say. I will tell the hon. Member plainly and frankly that I mean giving assistance to the victim of aggression and if, while we are giving that assistance to the victim, the aggressor attacks us, certainly we must firmly resist.

Mr. THORNE: We must not lie down and let people walk over us.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I say that in the face of these horrible outrages in Abyssinia, committed by a so-called civilised Power in the name of a so-called mission of civilisation, the inactivity of the Government is shameful. I was a


Member of the Government—in what I am going to say I will be frank, although a great many, particularly hon. Members above the Gangway, will not agree with me in this—when there was a Japanese aggression in China. I thought this was a lawless and terrible aggression. It is not true that the Government or that the League did nothing at that time. They sent the Lytton Commission to Manchuria and they refused to recognise the results of the Japanese action. I believed then and I believe now that there was nothing more that we could have done. The arm of the law was not strong enough to enforce the law on the other side of the globe. I believed that then and I still believe it now, but I do believe that the arm of the League of Nations is strong enough to enforce the law of nations against Italy in her aggression upon Abyssinia. That is why I say it is shameful for the Government to allow these things to go on in Abyssinia without insisting upon the Committee of 18 being summoned and giving in that Committee a strong and firm lead for the imposition of those sanctions which alone can be effective in restraining aggression.
I want now to return to the main subject of this Debate. Many questions of high policy have been raised in the adroit, skilful and strong speech of the leader of the Opposition, but the main issue which we are debating to-day concerns the authority of this House and the responsibility of each one of us as Members of Parliament and as representatives of the people. It has been said that there was a good deal of confusion about the Debate on Wednesday of last week. I have studied most carefully everything which was said during and which has been said since that Debate, and I can find no confusion. The hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) moved an Amendment demanding the same scales of pay for women as for men in the Civil Service. It has been laid down by the Secretary of the Treasury, Sir Warren Fisher, that pay in the Civil Service is related not to individuals but to ranks, and the hon. Member's Amendment called upon the Government to apply that principle equally to women and to men.
After the Debate on the Motion "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the

Chair," a Division was taken and the Motion was defeated, and as you, Sir, pointed out just now, in confirming what the Leader of the Opposition had said, it is laid down in Erskine May that the defeat of that Motion is to be construed as a vote in favour of the Amendment. Therefore, it is quite clear that the opinion of the House was expressed in that Division in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Jarrow. Another vote was then taken on the hon. Member's Amendment as a substantive Motion. But the issue was no longer the plain clear issue of principle which I have just described and on which the former vote had been taken. Strong pressure was brought to hear upon the supporters of the Government by the Patronage Secretary to support the Government in the Lobby as a question of confidence.

Miss HORSBRUGH: Does the right hon. Baronet infer that those who did not vote or voted differently in the second Division were deliberately doing so in spite of being in favour of the Amendment? I think he ought to know that many people informed the hon. Lady the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) that they could, not vote for the Amendment.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I am always ready to give way, but I desire rather to make my own speech. I was coming to the very point which the hon. Lady raised, and if she had waited for a moment I would have dealt with it. A private Member elected as a supporter of the Government could be put in no more difficult and embarrassing, and even distressing, situation than that in which he was put in the second Division. An honest man, who believed in the principle of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Jarrow, but who was elected to support the Government, was torn between two equally honourable motives, his desire to vote on the merits of the issue as he saw it, and his desire to fulfil the pledges he had given to his constituents to give general support to the Government with whose general policy he was in agreement. I am not scorning or deriding Inv hon. Member; let none of us do that. I hope that the hon. Lady who interrupted me did not think I was doing it. Any one of us may find himself in that very difficult and


distressing position, and the last thing I wish to do is to deride hon. Members who found themselves in difficulty in the second Division. I have no doubt that that accounts for the fact that a number of hon. Members transferred their support from the hon. Member for Jarrow to the Government in the second Division.
There were indeed two circumstances which heightened the difficulty of Members on Wednesday of last week. There was on the one hand the gravity of the international situation, which may certainly have led a great many to suppose that in all the circumstances they ought to give the strongest possible support to the Government, and that, if the Government insisted very strongly on getting support in that Division, they ought, although in agreement with the hon. Member for Jarrow on the merits of the question at issue, to support the Government. On the other hand, all the precedents, and certainly the most recent precedent, that of 1923, indicate that when the House of Commons expresses an opinion deliberately and on a point of substance—as was said by the Prime Minister in opening the Debate this afternoon—and especially on a matter affecting the grievances of His Majesty's subjects, it is the duty of the Government to respect it.

Mr. SANDYS: Did you vote?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: No, I did not, I was not here, because I had a very important engagement elsewhere. But I see no relevance in that observation, because I have never claimed that the fact that I am not present invalidates a vote of the House of Commons. If the Prime Minister and the Government did not want to respect the opinion of the House of Commons, there were two other alternatives open to them. One was to give the House of Commons a free vote on the issue, to allow it to be argued out, for the Prime Minister to make a powerful speech such as he made to-day, for other hon. Members who hold different opinions to make other speeches, and for the House to decide the question by a free vote. That would have been one way of ascertaining beyond a peradventure the opinion of the House. But to mix up this question with the question of confidence in the Government is not to respect the opinion of the House but to dodge it.
It is clear that whereas the merits of the Motion of the hon. Member for Jarrow were uppermost in the minds of hon. Members when they voted in the first Division on Wednesday, the fate of the Government and other questions of high policy were uppermost in the minds of those hon. Members who withdrew their support from the hon. Member for Jarrow on the second Division. As I say, I was absent owing to an important engagement. Other Members were absent too and something has been made of that fact. But if the Government had won the Division, the Patronage Secretary would not have said, "Oh, there were so few Members present that we cannot accept that as a decision." It is a different matter from his point of view, of course, when the Opposition wins on a Division, and in this case it was not only the Opposition, but a large number of Members drawn from all parties who defeated the Government and they are just as much entitled to have their opinion respected, as the Government are to have their opinion respected when they are victorious. If it is true, as no doubt it is, that not many Members voted in that Division, let us remember that a large number deliberately abstained because they were in sympathy with the Motion of the hon. Member for Jarrow but did not wish to embarrass the Government.
Accordingly, it is clear that the action of the House on Wednesday amounted to a declaration in favour of the principle of equal pay for men and women in the Civil Service, and we call upon the Government to show some measure of respect for that Resolution just as the Government of 1923, when the present Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer, showed respect to a Resolution moved by a Member of the Liberal party in similar circumstances. If they refuse, the Government will strike a blow at the authority of Parliament and at the working of our Parliamentary institutions, which would indeed justify hon. Members in all parts of the House in voting against them on this occasion. If the present determination of the Government to ignore and flout the opinion of the House is maintained, it will require the most consistent, determined and effective protest to restore the position of this House in the estimation of the public and its authority in the Government of the country.
I referred just now to the responsibility of individual members. The Government have ruthlessly and unnecessarily placed their supporters in a cruelly difficult position. Nothing would more quickly undermine the regard in which this House is held by the public than if it became the practice for private Members to vote for a Resolution in one Division, because it happened to be popular with a large section of their constituents, and then to vote with the Government in the next Division and support them in refusing to give effect to the Resolution for which they had voted at first. The only assumption on which such conduct would be unobjectionable would be that the Government intended, in their own way and in their own time to give effect to the opinion of the House.
On Wednesday, the House of Commons by refusing to pass the Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," was exercising its historic right to insist upon the redress of grievances before granting Supply. It was a substantial grievance to which the hon. Member for Jarrow drew attention, and a grievance for the redress of which we in this House have a special responsibility because these men and women are servants of the public of whom we are the representatives, with plenary powers. The grievance of the women is that the principle that pay in the Civil Service relates to rank is applied in their case with a difference, because the pay of women is less than the pay of men in the same ranks. They claim that if they are doing the same work as men they ought to be paid at the same rates. This principle is recognised in many other walks of life. It is recognised in Ministerial appointments and it struck me as curious that the one speaker for the Government in that Debate was the Noble Lady the Member for West Perth (Duchess of Atholl) who has benefited from the application of that principle herself when she held a Government appointment.

Mr. MAXTON: Was she worth it?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: That is a question into which I do not propose to enter at the moment, but this principle is also applied in the universities, in the higher grade appointments of the London County Council and in the Civil Services of the

United States, Canada and Australia. The men too have a grievance in connection with this matter. Their grievance is that women should be allowed to under-cut, by accepting jobs in the Service at lower rates of pay. This House decided last week that the principle which I have described should be adopted here. The question to-day however is more serious. It is a question of whether the authority of the House is to be respected by the Government. Erskine May says this:
The most important power vested in any branch of the Legislature is the right of imposing taxes upon the people and of voting money for the exigencies of the public service. The exercise of this right by the Commons is practically a law for the annual meeting of Parliament"—
For what purpose? For cross-examining Ministers, for legislation, for supervising the administration of Government? No,—
for redress of grievances; and it may also be said to give to the Commons the chief authority in the State.
Our forebears have bequeathed to us the chief authority in the State. The question to be decided to day is whether or not we still possess it.

5.24 p.m.

Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: I intervene for the purpose of putting to the House a slightly different construction of the issue which is before us than those which have been put forward, either by the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken or by the Leader of the Opposition. I was here throughout the principal events of Wednesday, and I submit that what the Government now ask is neither so unreasonable nor so contrary to precedent and to the rights of Members as the Opposition would have us believe. I yield to no one in my respect for and my desire to maintain the rights of the House as against the Government. I believe that Parliamentary Government would soon fall away if the executive became dictators over the legislature, and I would oppose any proposal of that kind. In fact I have opposed and voted against my own party on alterations in procedure which, in my view, tended in that direction. But I do not think that on this occasion the Government are doing anything unreasonable.
I was in support of the Government on Wednesday. I do not believe in the principle of equal pay for the sexes in the Civil Service, but I do not propose to deal


with that question now. I think it has been decided. Much can be said on both sides and I think has been said many times too often. I only mention the fact because some have taunted the Government adherents with the fact that only one of their number spoke in support of the Government on Wednesday. But the Members who make those gibes are well aware of the common practice of the House. When it is known what attitude the Government are taking on a certain proposal and when many Members who are opposed to the Government wish to speak, and when the House is anxious to come to a decision, it is the common practice of those who know they are getting what they want, to repay the House by remaining silent. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned this as if it were a symptom of lack of faith in the Government on the part of their own supporters. I made similar charges when I was sitting in Opposition, because exactly the same symptom, if it is a symptom, was prevalent among the supporters of the Socialist Government.

Mr. EDE: Does the hon. Member intend us to understand that he did not mean what he said when he was sitting on this side?

Mr. BEAUMONT: Of course I meant it and the hon. Member who was also in that Parliament knows full well that I meant it. I was new to the House in those days and I did not realise its customs then as I have realised them since. These gibes to which I have referred may be justified coming from new Members, but, when they come from old Members, I venture to say they are humbug.

Mr. EDE: Then the hon. Member ought to apologise to us for the hard things he said to us.

Mr. BEAUMONT: If I thought they had had any effect on the hon. Member, I would do so. I now turn to the constitutional question, and the only thing in which I agree with the previous speakers is their statement that it is of considerable importance. The House, first, defeated a Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," and they then defeated an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) on the principle of equal pay

for equal work. I would not have the presumption to challenge the opinion of Erskine May on that subject, but I will return to it in a moment. What I wish to point out is that in the old days when this procedure of setting up the Committee of Supply and hearing grievances was introduced, it was a common practice to refuse to allow Mr. Speaker to leave the Chair, then to defeat the Amendment which was brought forward and to proceed to the next business. The point of that procedure was that the House took the view that there were grievances but that the Amendment immediately before the House did not deal with any grievance in which the House was interested. They therefore adopted that method of getting on to other grievances which did interest them. I am not minimising the effect of what has happened. All I am saying is that the ancient practice of this House was, in effect, to say by the first vote, "We are not satisfied that no grievances exist," and then by the second vote to say, "The grievance raised in this question is not the grievance in which we are interested." That is the constitutional effect of the votes which the House took, and, strictly constitutionally, therefore, that is no reason why the Government should take note of the question of equal pay.
The hon. Lady the Member for Jarrow laughs, but I am not ignoring Erskine May and what has come since the days to which I referred. Erskine May has laid down that nowadays a defeat on a Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," has come to mean approval of the sentiment of the Amendment which has been moved. I am not questioning that at all, and I do not question the fact, which everybody knows, that a small House—the right hon. Gentleman said it was not the less valid for that—came, after hearing what the Government had to say, to the conclusion that they desired to establish the principle of equal pay.
When a Government is defeated like that, I submit that it has three alternatives. It can resign. That is, of course, the obvious course which would commend itself to Members of the official Opposition, but I do not think that even the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), who demanded it last Wednesday with such eloquence and vigour, seriously regarded it as a solution which


would commend itself either to the Government or, in fact, to the country at the present time.

Mr. MAXTON: Why not?

Mr. BEAUMONT: Because, luckily, I think, the practice of dissolving this House, or of the Government resigning on being defeated on a comparatively minor matter, has long since passed into desuetude. There have been innumerable precedents, both in and out of the Labour Government, going back over the last few years. I do not think anybody would seriously recommend that course. The second course is to give effect to the wishes of the House. The Government have considered most carefully, I have no doubt, whether or not they can do that and have come to the conclusion that they cannot. Personally, I am delighted that they have come to that conclusion, though I am rather surprised. I wish they would come to that sort of conclusion with a similar firmness rather oftener. But that being so, there is a third course, I submit, and that is the course which they are taking. They say, "We do not believe that you fully realise the full force of what you are asking us to do; if you really mean this thing, you must get another Government to carry it out, because we will not." Having come to that decision, they come and ask the House what the House wishes to do in that connection, and the question before the House to-night is really whether we want another Government and the principle of equal pay, or whether we want this Government to continue and not to carry out the decision of the House on that question. That issue is perfectly plain, and I think it is one which the Government are absolutely entitled to put to the House.
I do not see how on earth anybody would benefit by the free vote suggested by the Leader of the Liberal party. On what issue would it be? Nobody seriously objects to setting up Committee of Supply. The question of equal pay has already been talked about and voted on, and the only issue that we are deciding to-night is whether we want the Government to continue on condition that they reverse that decision, or whether we want them to go out and act on the decision.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: The hon. Member must know that I am not in favour of having a new Debate and a. free vote. I consider that the decision was finally given last Wednesday and ought to be respected by the Government. I was only saying that if the Government did not take that view, there were two other courses, both of them in my judgment bad—one was to give the House a free vote, and then they really would come to a decision, and the other was to mix it with the question of confidence.

Mr. BEAUMONT: The decision is with this House. No House can compel any given Government to carry out any given policy, and no Government can compel any given House to renounce any given policy. What the Government are doing is to put the choice before the House as to whether they want the policy or the Government. That is the course which the Government are taking, and which I think they were right to take, and when we go into the Lobby to-night, I believe that we shall see that we have chosen the Government by an overwhelming majority.

5.36 p.m.

Miss WILKINSON: If we analyse the speech of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont), we find that he said that previous elected Houses did their plain duty with regard to the redress of grievances before granting Supply. If he implies that the present House is not doing its duty, I agree with him, and I say that it is the result of the laxity due to there having been such an overwhelming majority on the Government side. The hon. Member said it was a small House that took the decision last Wednesday, but what were the numbers? Those who voted in that Division were 304, plus four tellers. If the hon. Member will look back at some of the most important decisions that have been taken in this House, he will find that lesser numbers than 304 have actually voted. But I want to raise again this point of the number of people who voted.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: I never suggested that the Division was invalid or its importance lessened because there were only a few people taking part in it.

Miss WILKINSON: No, it was not a few. I maintain that 304 is not a few,


or, if it is, then some of the most important decisions of this Government have been taken on votes of a similar amount or less, so that I think we can rule out the idea that 304 is such a few as to be nearly negligible. The Prime Minister never claimed that this was a snap vote, and, of course, it was not possible for him to do so, but I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the knowledge that this vote was to be taken had been before the country and those who were specially interested in it for several weeks, ever since the actual ballot which I was fortunate enough to win was taken. During that time the Civil Service Association, which consists of men as well as women, and a very large number of other organisations had been lobbying the Members of this House, and I would like to inform the right hon. Gentleman—I could bring him proof if he needed it—that a very large number of Members of his own party had pledged themselves one way and another in support of this principle of equal pay. There was a number of them who felt that they did not want to vote against the Government and who absented themselves, and there were others who came, but I do not think the right hon. Gentleman would suggest—I am sure he could not—that if in fact this had been given a free vote of the House, it would not have been carried by an overwhelming majority. If he does think that, I can produce to him the pledges that his own supporters have given.

The PRIME MINISTER: On the question of proof, an archangel himself could not say what this House would do on a free vote on any question.

Miss WILKINSON: Neither the right hon. Gentleman nor myself as yet belongs to the order of archangels.

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope we may, some day.

Miss WILKINSON: If the Premier admits, even by implication, that on a free vote of this House this principle would have been carried, whereas in fact it was being argued on Supply and not on a mere private Member's Motion, on which anybody can give a fairly irresponsible vote, it was not an irresponsible vote. The Members of this House knew what they were doing. If they did not

know they were voting against the Government on a question of Supply, they are not fit to be Members of this House, because this is one of the most responsible duties that Members of Parliament have to perform. Therefore, I suggest that the Prime Minister, whom a very large number of people who are not of his party have respected as being a great stickler for democratic rights, is in fact taking a very serious step in not admitting the democratic principle on this occasion because it is connected with women.
Now I want to raise a point which I think the senior Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) is about to raise, because she has mentioned it to me, and that is the question of whether she would vote for my Amendment because it bronght in the question of the 1920 vote. The hon. Member voted for the first part of the Amendment, but as a result of a conversation that she had with me and of conversations that we had with other Members of the House, including the hon. and gallant Member for Hexham (Colonel Clifton Brown), I made it clear in the course of my speech that we were taking this vote purely on the question of equal pay for equal work, and the Minister himself, when be replied, very kindly took that view of it and said, of the Amendment:
It has been put down and has been discussed throughout on the basis that it seeks an equalisation of pay for men and women."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st April, 1936; col. 2067, Vol. 310.]
Therefore what the 1920 Resolution was or was not was not before the House. The whole Debate had narrowed it down to the question, Are you going to pay equal pay for equal work?

Miss HORSBRUGH: Why were the words of the 1920 Resolution put in the hon. Lady's Amendment if she did not mean it?

Miss WILKINSON: I did not say I did not mean it. The hon. Lady knows very well that this Amendment was drawn up by the Civil Service Association, and, as very often happens in these conferences, a great deal of negotiation had taken place beforehand. It was agreed, and the hon. Lady really cannot ride off on this question, because it had been discussed and agreed beforehand. If she says, "I will not vote against my


Government on a question of confidence," I respect that attitude, but she must not try to get out of her plain vote by that door, because that just is not done.
I do not really want to go into the whole question of equal pay again, I do not think it is desirable, and a good many Members want to speak, but I do want to answer two points which were put forward by the Prime Minister. He said, and I think rightly, that if conditions in the Civil Service were improved, there might be jealousy. I would remind him that there is always jealousy on the part of those who have to work in private competitive enterprise about those who enjoy the protection of the socialised services. It is one of the strongest points of hon. Members of my party in arguing the whole question of socialised services before the country. The same thing could be said of the police and of any others who have the protection of socialised services. When the right hon. Gentleman spoke about outside employment, it was a little difficult to find out to whom he was referring and with whom he was comparing the women of the Civil Service. This does not affect the ordinary clerical classes, who do similar work to the work of a routine character in other instances.
Women in these capacities pass by competitive examination and are recognised as belonging to a profession. In the professions the idea of equal pay for equal work has so gained ground that the British Medical Association, for example, insists that where advertisements are inserted for medical officers there should not be different scales for men and women. I have consulted my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt), who is a King's Counsel, and he tells me that it would be a breach of legal etiquette to offer a woman barrister, even a junior, anything less than the stereotyped fee. The Prime Minister spoke about trade unions, but I can only say that I am a national official of a trade union that pays everybody from the office girl to myself equal pay with men and has done so ever since it had women on the staff. I suggest to the Prime Minister that he really has a bad conscience on this matter. This is a question of payment for the job, payment—as the Prime

Minister said in words nobody could better—for the work of women who are giving comparable service with men. The hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) has tried to drag in the question of family allowances. I am surprised at that from an avowed champion of equality. It is rather like the old idea that women should not be allowed to vote unless they could prove they were good mothers.
This is a principle that women who have proved themselves fitted for the job should be paid for the job, and it is a principle which men are more and more demanding. Every hon. Member has received telegrams of one kind and another on this subject. I have received sheaves and I propose to refer to only one. It came from 2,347 members of the staff of the Ministry of Health organised in the Civil Service Association, and they demanded equality of pay. Both the Prime Minister and the Minister who was in charge of the Debate on Wednesday have tried to suggest that the men would not agree. Believe me, this is one of those matters that are becoming vital to men. The Prime Minister has said that women are pushing men out. Is it good for the nation that women should get jobs because they are cheaper? The Prime Minister's speech seemed to say to the women, "Do not ask for this; it may militate against your being employed. Why not come in at a cheaper rate? Then you will get the job." The women of this country do not want to be blacklegs. They want to come in on a basis of equality. They claim that they have proved that they can do the job. They have had some handicaps to face, and I wonder whether men realise what those handicaps were when women were trying to get on an equal basis with men. The Prime Minister has taunted us on the number of women there are in the House. Has he any idea how difficult it is for women to get into the House, not merely because of the electors, but because of the terrific prejudice against women? Are we to get here by offering to do the job cheaper?
Women have recollections of the fine speeches made by the Prime Minister on the subject of women. This is an opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to go beyond making speeches. It is true that he gave us the vote. I pay the Prime Minister that compliment, but we had


to work for that right. Women are now equal before the law, and is it not time, when they have passed examinations and when the Principal Secretary to the Treasury, Sir Warren Fisher, and all those who have experience of women's work, including the Postmaster-General, have said definitely that there is no difficulty, that there should be equal payment? The Prime Minister says that this would not meet with favour in the country. I think that he is out of touch with feeling in the country if he thinks that that feeling holds good now. There was a time when it did. I doubt very much whether it does now. I think that not only men, but those who are most concerned, namely, married women, the wives of men who have to meet the competition of women, would give their vote for this principle. It is completely out-of-date to say that a woman should be paid less because she is a woman. I ask the Prime Minister not to fall behind 1936 and to imagine that we are still in the days of the nineteenth century.

5.52 p.m.

Miss CAZALET: I feel that I cannot record my vote without making my position clear in regard to the main issue that has occasioned the Debate to-day, namely, equal pay for equal work. I voted against the Government twice last Wednesday, and I did so because I believed in the principle and justice of the Amendment which was so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson). The Prime Minister has made a very disarming and sweetly reasonable speech this afternoon, but I much regret that, in spite of it, I find it impossible to alter my opinion on this subject. I am sorry that it has been thought necessary to make the vote tonight a Vote of Confidence in the Government, but since it has been thought necessary, I shall certainly vote for the Government because, no matter what my views may be in regard to equal pay, I think it, is of vital importance that the National Government should be in power during this serious period of our history. I hope, however, that the Government will consider again seriously the whole question which occasioned their defeat last Wednesday, because I am convinced that it was a real manifestation of the way in which public opinion is moving in this country on the question of equal pay for equal work.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The two appeals which have just been addressed to my right hon. Friend from opposite sides of the House must, I am sure, have rent his bosom, because no one has been more sympathetic to every cause in which the interests of women are involved, and, as the hon. Lady very frankly recognised, he played a great part, though not the whole part, in bearing the responsibility for the great measure of enfranchisement which marks his tenure of power. I do not think that the supporters of the principle of equal pay for equal work have any reason to be at all down-hearted at what has occurred. As a matter of fact, they have done very well. They have had a marked success, and I have little doubt that their essay on the next occasion will be advanced with every favourable prospect. Whether in the end the adoption of that principle would be for the benefit of women as a whole in their employment, is a, questionable matter. I know that there are a certain number of Members of the opposite sex who are in favour of this principle for the reason that they think it will rid the labour market of a serious element of competition. However, I do not rise for the purpose of dealing further with that topic.
I have listened to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, and I quite understand his jubilation. One of the attractive features of British Parliamentary life is that every dog has his day. You sustain a grievous defeat at a General Election and are swept away and crushed at the polls, but in a very few months some Parliamentary score cheers all hearts. It is one of the processes by which the population of these islands is increasingly rallied to our ancient and gradually developing constitution. Like the Prime Minister, I remember several instances of this kind under various Governments. I remember only a few years ago commenting on such an episode when it occurred under the Labour Government of the Lord President of the Council. I was reminded that I was so indiscreet on that occasion as to refer to the right hon. Gentleman as "the boneless wonder." I must say that I am rather doubtful whether my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is quite as adept in dealing with these situations as his predecessor in the office which he holds. A complete mastery of these


acrobatic feats requires one to be broken into them very early and to have continued practice. No one, therefore, need at all grudge the Leader of the Opposition if he sings peans of triumph and utters all the war-whoops that are appropriate to such a festive occasion.

INTERNATIONAL SITUATION.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he suggested that there are some wider causes at work than the mere accident of the Division the other night. I was abroad when the Hoare-Laval crisis occurred, but I certainly sustained the impression, at a distance from this country, that something very serious had happened to the Government, and also that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had been affected, and had been affected in those qualities which have commended, and still do characteristically commend him to the British public. At any rate, one felt that there was a great deal that was not easy to understand about his first speech, and, his lips being sealed, about the subsequent change of policy, about the circumstances which led to the Foreign Secretary leaving the Government. It was a very obscure arid difficult situation, and when I returned to this country I am bound to say that I was sensible, conscious, of a different atmosphere in the House of Commons from that which had existed when we all met so triumphantly after the General Election.

One incident, which I think is extremely relevant to what occurred the other night, has certainly filled me with surprise. Some few weeks ago my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) made a most grave and serious speech of criticism, and even of censure, addressed to the Prime Minister in his own presence. It astonished me that my right hon. Friend did not rise at once and say what it occurred to him to say. After all, this is a Forum of debate, and a very grave indictment preferred by a right hon. Member of high responsibility, especially a Member who has long been the buttress, and on one occasion at least the saviour, of the Prime Minister's Government, ought not to be left unanswered. There ought to be the cut-and-thrust of debate, and I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, if not at that

moment, at any rate at the earliest opportunity, did not take up the points of argument which were addressed to him. I am sure that when issues of this kind are, as it were, pushed aside and ignored, and an attempt is made to carry the business of Parliament forward with the influence of the Whips and of the Central Office and of an indulgent Press—if that is to become the process there is bound to be a weakening in the ties which unite the House to the Government and which preserve the vitality of our Parliamentary institutions.

The Government ask for a Vote of Confidence. They de not ask that this Debate should be treated as a Vote of Confidence, because they have done exceptionally well. They will no doubt get the Vote of Confidence, but I hope they will not make the mistake of thinking that it is a particular kind of testimonial, or a bouquet, or that it arises from long pent-up spontaneous feelings of enthusiasm which can no longer be held in check. There are many matters that are in order in this debate about which we are concerned. My right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal party, in a speech of passionate indignation and stentorian eloquence, has referred to the position in Abyssinia. I agree with him that we cannot avert our eyes from that position. It is very difficult to judge what is happening in the military sphere, but it looks as if the Ethiopian people are being heavily defeated, and there are some authorities who doubt whether their resistance can even be prolonged until the rains come. If that should be so—I cannot attempt to prophesy—then quite soon all those Abyssianians who have not been destroyed by poison gas will be subjugated and their native land annexed by Italy. If that happens it will be certainly a most melancholy chapter in the recent records of the British people. The aggressor will be triumphant. He will be rewarded with gains far beyond the Hoare-Laval proposals. The League of Nations—50 nations led by one, as Signor Mussolini said, in a phrase of formidable significance—will have been unable to do anything of the slightest use to the Abyssinians. Indeed, all we have done for them, as far as I can remember, is to put an embargo on their obtaining arms before they were attacked. Otherwise, we have done nothing for them at all—


except, of course, the speeches which have been made.

There is a 'heavy score on the other side of the account. We have incurred the formidable antagonism of Italy in the Mediterranean. That, I expect, will mean in future years a greatly increased charge for our military, naval and air forces in protecting all the important establishments we have in that area. We shall, in fact, only maintain the independence of Egypt in the future, and keep open the road to India, by an increasingly serious strain upon our resources. We have in this matter fallen between two stools. We have managed to secure all the disadvantages of both the courses without any of the advantages of either. We have pressed France into a course of action which did not go far enough to help the Abyssinians, but went far enough to sever her from Italy, with the result that the occasion was given to Herr Hitler to tear up Treaties and re-occupy the Rhineland. Incidentally, it is for these results that we have paid £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 sterling, as the Supplementary Estimates show, and have inflicted a very considerable strain upon the personnel of our Fleet.

I must say that the responsibility, not for the events of the world, but for the conduct of our interventions in this matter, must rest in a direct manner upon the Government, nor can you exclude my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister from his share. You cannot possibly exclude the Prime Minister from the responsibility which is shared by the Government as a whole. There is an old constitutional doctrine which says that the King can do no wrong, and if the King does what is thought to be wrong it is his bad advisers who are blamed; but no one must really expect to extend that doctrine to the controversial head of a political Government. That would be an altogether undue extension of the principle. Both the last House of Commons and the present House of Commons have followed very docilely and faithfully the course recommended to them in regard to our interventions, and the degree of our interventions, in the Italo-Abyssinian sphere, and here is where we have been led. Everyone knows that unless some extraordinary change in the military situation takes place, what I have just said represents the upshot and the conclusion, the results which have been

achieved. Now, Sir, I say it was a, very grievous thing to lead these 50 nations up the blind alley of fatuity and frustration. It was a grievous thing, also, to encourage, however indirectly, a primitive population to a desperate resistance and then, in the event, to leave them to their fate. We cannot undo the past, but we are bound to pass it in review in order to draw from it such lessons as may be applicable to the future, and surely the conclusion from this story is that we should not intervene in these matters unless we are in earnest and prepared to carry our intervention to all necessary lengths.

When the late Foreign Secretary made his famous speech at Geneva, in September, and when my right hon. Friend who was Minister for League of Nations Affairs at that time was busy arranging sanctions at Geneva, as it was his duty to do, in accordance with the policy of the Government at that time, we seemed to claim and to take a leading position in the world, but all the glamour and fame of those days has to be paid for now when, apart from all these material losses, we are likely to look extremely foolish. The price has now to be paid because the Government have been conducting their intervention without, as I believe, either sufficient resolution to carry it through or a sufficient strength of character to confront those who would have been their critics if they had refused to go in so deeply. If we had merely done our duty as a member of the League of Nations—here I am really repeating words which I ventured to speak in June and July last in this House—without aspiring to take so prominent a position, without aspiring to take the lead with all its prizes, with all its penalties, with all its honour and with all the reverse of honour which sometimes attaches in cases of misfortune, we should have fulfilled our obligations under the Covenant, and we should be in a far less questionable and dangerous position that we are to-day.

There is one particular evil consequence which I must mention, which has arisen out of this policy which we have pursued. The late Foreign Secretary, as part of his great speech, his memorable speech, at Geneva, made a declaration about raw materials which, though carefully guarded, did, in fact, bring up the whole Colonial question. Now, Sir, where do


we stand upon this question of the return of the mandated Colonies to Germany? We ought to know. We ought to know not only where we stand at this moment, but what are the convictions and principles by which the Government will be guided in dealing with this matter in the future. The statements of Ministers are somewhat conflicting. The Colonial Secretary made what seemed to me and many of my friends who sit on these benches a very satisfactory statement, especially in the context in which it was uttered. But then the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Lord Stanhope, is reported in the public Press as having said that on this matter he had an open mind; and the late Minister without Portfolio concluded a speech the other night, fresh as he must he from the very centre of Ministerial thought, by saying, in effect, that we must alter our conceptions about the British Empire and prepare ourselves to make considerable sacrifices.

What does all that mean? What is the conviction of His Majesty's Government? Have they an open mind upon the future Are they waiting to see who pushes the hardest? Are they wondering which is likely to be the line of least resistence? I was reading in the "Times" this morning a long account from Tanganyika Colony where, it appears, it is a matter of common assumption that that territory will soon be handed back to Germany.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Among the Germans.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, among the Germans. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, I understand, is to reply to-night, and who has a heavy burden nowadays with the Budget and all the rest of it on his shoulders—I appeal to him, to give us a plain answer to-night. Does he or does he not accept the view put forward the other day by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham that there should be no question of handing over even mandated territories to Germany while race persecution is rife in that country? I ask him also is it not a fact that we could not in any case hand over these territories to Germany but only to the League of Nations, which alone could decide upon their future destiny? The Government must have a

view, and they ought to declare it to us. We do not want to have another muddle about these Colonies—or our own Colonies—similar to that into which we have been led about Abyssinia. We do not want to excite all sorts of hopes, and in this case arouse all kinds of appetites, and then, when it comes to the issue, refuse point blank to do anything effective. No, I agree with my right, hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham, and I hope that he rightly interprets, and that we shall be told to-night that he rightly interprets, the view of the Government on this question.
I shall not detain the House very long this evening, and I will come to what is our main preoccupation, namely, our relations with Nazi Germany. The gravity of the situation is in no way diminished by the fact that it has become less exciting than it was two or three weeks ago. When you are drifting, floating, down the stream of Niagara, it may easily happen that from time to time you run into a reach of quite smooth water, or that a bend in the river or a change in the wind may make the roar of the falls seem far more distant: but your position and your preoccupation are in no way affected thereby. In this Northern problem also, dictatorship has gained an immense triumph. Herr Hitler has torn up treaties and has garrisoned the Rhineland. His troops are there, and there they are going to stay. All this means that the Nazi régime has gained a new prestige in Germany, and a most powerful and sustained impression of their strength has been spread abroad through all the neighbouring countries. But more than that. As I understand it, Germany is now fortifying the Rhine zone, or is about to fortify it. No doubt it will take some time. We are told that in the first instance only field entrenchments will be erected, but those who know to what perfection the Germans can carry field entrenchments like the Hindenburg line, with all the masses of concrete and the underground chambers there included—those who remember that, will realise that field entrenchments differ only in degree from permanent fortifications, and work steadily up from the first cutting of the sods to their final and perfect form.
I do not doubt that the whole of the German frontier opposite to France is to be fortified as strongly and as speedily


as possible. Three, four or six months will certainly see a barrier of enormous strength. What will be the diplomatic and strategic consequences of that? I am not looking at the matter at all from the technical aspect, but from the aspect of its diplomatic reactions. The creation of a line of forts opposite to the French frontier will enable the German forces to be economised on that line, and will enable enormous forces to swing round through Belgium and Holland. That is for us a danger of the gravest kind. Suppose we broke with France. Suppose these efforts which are being made to divide the neighbouring countries and break the union of the last surviving free democracies of the Western world were successful, and they were sundered, and suppose that France, isolated, could do not more than defend her own frontier behind Belgium and Holland by prolonging her fortress line, those small countries might very speedily pass under German domination, and the large colonial Empire which they possess would no doubt be transferred at the same time. These are matters, most grave that ought not to escape our attention, and the public ought to be educated upon them constantly by Ministers and those who see very clearly what are the realities of the times.
I thought that the Prime Minister's remark which he made some years ago about our frontier being the Rhine, was liable at the time to be misunderstood, but if he meant by that that it was a mortal danger to Britain to have the Low Countries in the grip—in the fortified grip —of the strongest military power upon the Continent, and now, in these days, to have all the German aviation bases established there, he was only repeating the lesson taught in four centuries of history. Let me say that that danger will be brought definitely and sensibly nearer from the moment that this new line of German fortifications is completed. But then, look East. There, the consequences of the Rhineland fortification may be more immediate. That is to us a less direct danger but is a more imminent danger. The moment those fortifications are completed, and in proportion as they are completed, the whole aspect of Middle Europe is changed and the whole outlook, which is also important, of Middle Europe, is changed—

the position of the Baltic States, of Poland and of Czechoslovakia, with which must be associated Jugoslavia, Rumania, Austria and some other countries. All those countries are affected very decisively the moment that this great work of construction has been completed.
Some of those nations, but not all, are now balancing in deep perplexity what course they should take. Should they continue in their association with the League of Nations? Should they continue their association with what is called collective security and the reign of law? Or should they make the best terms they can with the one resolute, warlike Power which is stirring in Europe at the present time I That is the question they have to ask themselves. If before the end of the year nothing satisfactory is done, and nothing satisfactory can be achieved by the negotiation and conferences which no doubt will occupy a large part of this year, we may see many powerful nations, with armies and air forces, associated with the German Nazi system, and the other nations who are opposed to that system will, by that very fact, become isolated and practically helpless. It is idle to say that these are not matters which the House of Commons is bound to view with vigilance and attention. It is idle to pretend that these are only matters affecting the obscurities, the politics and the hatreds of Central Europe.
This brings me to the staff conversations which are to begin to-morrow or the-day after in London. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made a manly speech the other day. He took his political life in his hands, and Parliament sustained him very decidedly. It is extremely important that there should be a responsible Foreign Secretary and not a headless committee. I trust that the result of that Debate will give my right hon. Friend the necessary power to produce some coherent theme which the country can understand, and which Parliament can faithfully pursue. Almost any honourable policy would be better in times like these, and safer, than a succession of attempts, however well-meant, to find the line of least resistance, and to avoid saying things which might offend this or that well-meaning section of British public opinion. Let us beware, henceforth, of being mealy-mouthed in


these matters which affect our lives and our future.
Staff conversations are now to begin. I do not expect that those generals will have very much to tell each other which they do not know already unofficially. It is certainly unusual to elevate staff conversations into a prime feature of policy or diplomacy, and it would hardly be possible to choose a more awkward counter which the Government could use as a means of conveying to France and Belgium the assurance that Great Britain stands by her obligations, but the very awkwardness of the counter and its unusual use for this purpose, and the fact that the Government have adhered to this point actually emphasises its healthy significance, in spite of some apparent difficulty which it was anticipated that it might have, and in spite of the efforts made from abroad to prejudice British public opinion on this subject. It surely means, and it is taken to mean, and meant to mean, that Great Britain has linked herself with France and Belgium in the event of an unprovoked invasion of their soil, and that Great Britain will not go back upon her word, even if that means war. That is what is meant. Let us face that, if we are agreed upon it. The importance of this act is in no way diminished because as a matter of fact Germany is not in the slightest degree likely to invade France or Belgium in the next few months. No doubt the Government hope by this act to steady opinion in all countries, and in all the countries which I have mentioned, and which are in great apprehension in Central Europe, and to rally them to the earnest support of the League of Nations.
We ought, therefore to support the Government and to defend them in the country, even if some of us do not think that this would be actually the best method to adopt; but I must point out that any steadying effect which this act of Great Britain may produce will be more than wiped out by the development and completion of the German fortress barrier, because that will be a decisive closing of the door upon the influence of the Western democracies on the fate of Central Europe. Therefore, I hold that the time is coming for a final and lasting friendly settlement with Germany. The time available is short. What should be our next step? I hope we shall not re-

peat the Abyssinian story; I hope we shall not claim an undue prominence, more than we are ready to make good. I should regret to see this issue drawn as if it were one between Great Britain and Germany; I should regret to see the discussions conducted any further as if they were conversations or correspondence between my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and Herr von Ribbentrop or any other German representative. We have not the solidarity of conviction yet in this country, nor have we adequate defences to take a line of undue prominence or to seek to dominate this matter.
We must do our part, but not more than our part, and that is why I agree with the Leader of the Opposition in the view which he has expressed, and which I gather was not at all unwelcome to the Foreign Secretary, that these supreme issues should not be settled by any single Power, but by all chose Powers, or all who matter, at Geneva, and within the circle and under the authority of the League of Nations. We ought to intimate, therefore, to Germany that the points raised in Herr Hitler's interesting and important Note involve the whole of Europe, and that, without prejudice to our specific obligations under Locarno, it would be far better that they should be discussed at Geneva, and that our answers should be made as far as possible from Geneva and with the broadest possible backing of the Powers associated under the Covenant of the League. It does not follow that, because the League of Nations has been ineffective and impotent in protecting Abyssinia, however much we may regret it, that it will not have a real power to deal with the perils which have arisen in Northern Europe. Here you have great nations banded together by solemn treaties, armed most powerfully, whose vital interests are affected; here you have small nations in numbers who, individually, may be helpless, but who, organised and united under the authority of the League, may exert a very great power indeed. Thus the League of Nations, in dealing with these matters for all the interested countries, ought not to lack champions. That is why I agree with what has been proposed. There is safety in numbers, and I believe also that there may be peace in numbers.
The Leader of the Opposition twitted me the other night with having become a recent convert to these ideas of collective security, and I venture to ask the great indulgence of the House to do what otherwise I should be loth to do—to read in vindication of myself a very few words which I used two and a-half years ago, on the 7th November, 1933. I was urging the Government of my right hon. Friend the Lord President to desist from endeavouring to persuade France to disarm, and I was urging him to begin the rearmament of Great Britain, in view of all the news that was reaching us as to the beginning of German preparations. This is what I said:
I believe that we shall find our greatest safety in co-operating with the other Powers of Europe, not in taking a leading part but in coming in in our proper place, with all the neutral States and the smaller States of Europe which will gather together anxiously in the near future at Geneva. We shall make a great mistake to separate ourselves entirely from them at this juncture. Whatever way we turn there is risk. There is peril on every side. I believe that the least risk and the greatest help will be found in recreating the Concert of Europe through the League of Nations, not for the purpose of fiercely quarrelling and haggling about the details of disarmament"—
German rearmament was then in its infancy—
but in an attempt to address Germany collectively, so that there may be some redress of the grievances of the German nation and that that may be effected before this peril of rearmament reaches a point which may endanger the peace of the world."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th November, 1933; col. 142, Vol. 281.]
That was the counsel which I ventured to offer to the House nearly three years ago, when all was so easy; it is still the counsel which I renew to the House tonight, when all has become so hard.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. CASSELLS: I find it difficult to follow such an illustrious speaker as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), and I do so with a feeling of trepidation; but, be that as it may, I have as an individual certain very definite views in connection with this matter. In the first place, I may say frankly and honestly that I was not in the slightest degree struck or impressed by the speech of the Prime Minister this afternoon. It seems to me that we are sitting here to-day in con-

ference dealing with an inquest on the corpse of the National Government. Coming as I do from a county constituency which in November, 1935, was returned as a Government seat with a majority of no less than 5,000 votes, but where, after the lapse of no more than four and a-half months, the consensus of opinion has so changed that the Government now find themselves in a minority of approximately 1,000 votes, it seems to me that these are facts and circumstances which speak for themselves and brook absolutely no contradiction. Nevertheless, we find to-day from the speech of the Prime Minister that he still considers that he has the confidence of the country behind him. I would address this question to the Prime Minister. He has made an ex parte statement. What justification, what facts has he behind him to justify and merit his placing that statement before the House?
I did not intend to-day to deal with the question of confidence from the point of view of foreign policy, but, in view of what the last speaker said, I propose to address myself in the short time at my disposal to that particular theme. There are people to-day who say that the Great War of 1914–1918 served no useful purpose. I stand here in this House, speaking as a young man, and I say that the Great War did serve a useful purpose. That useful purpose was to prove to every one of us conclusively that wars never have been any good, and never can be any good; and, more than that, the Great War gave to us the League of Nations, which, I submit, is built from its very foundation upon the blood and the suffering of the boys and men who died and suffered that we might live. And yet, in the year of Our Lord 1936, what position do we find? We find, every one of us, if we are honest with our own consciences, if we are honest with ourselves, that that foundation of the League of Nations is tottering and trembling, and the only possible reason is that it is to a very great extent directly attributable to the weak, spineless, changing, vacillating international policy of the so-called National Government.
As I sat in this House last week listening to the speeches of the Foreign Secretary, of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), and of the right hon.


Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), I was struck by two things. The first was that the Foreign Secretary stated that he was not prepared to be the first Foreign Secretary to break his word. I want to say quite frankly that I believe in our Foreign Secretary; I should be lying if I said anything to the contrary; but in none of these speeches did he find a single word of criticism levelled at the policy of the National Government so far as support of the League of Nations was concerned. If we trace the history of the League of Nations, we find that, almost from its inception, our Government's policy, apart from when it was represented by the late Arthur Henderson, has been changing and vacillating in character. Let me give one or two illustrations.
In the first place, there was the invasion of Manchuria by Japan, which has already been referred to by a Member on these benches. Then, in February, 1932, we had the Italian Government, through Signor Grandi, coming to the League at Geneva with a concrete policy of disarmament to the German level of the Treaty of Versailles. That was destroyed and killed in its very infancy by a representative from this House. In December, 1925, there was the attempted agreement between this country on the one hand and Italy on the other with regard to the partition of Abyssinia; and lastly, and most important of all, in November, 1935, the National Government went to the country on a definite and very particular issue. That issue was two-fold—an issue of rearmament and an issue relative to the application of sanctions. I come from my constituency with this demand behind me. What the people of my constituency and the people of Great Britain want to know is this. The National Government was returned in November, 1935, with a definite working majority, with a definite authority and mandate from the people of this country to apply sanctions. Whether we agree with that policy or not does not matter so far as this question is concerned, but what we desire to know is how it comes about that, after no less than four and a-half months, oil sanctions have not been imposed, and during all this long period the raping, the ravishing and the destruction of the poor uncivilised Abyssinians have been going on. Everyone in this

House has a conscience. There is something inherent in everyone of us which tells us the difference, between what is right and what is wrong, and between what is good and what is bad. Foreign policy is not a party matter. It should at all times be above party politics and I ask that when we go into the Lobby we shall judge our future conduct by our experience of the past, and vote accordingly.

6.46 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I am sorry that the Debate has gone so rapidly from the circumstances that precipitated it to the general question of foreign affairs. I hope I shall not be asked to deal exclusively with foreign affairs, beyond at this juncture congratulating the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Cassells) on his first effort in this House. He chose an extraordinarily difficult occasion to make it, and he chose perhaps the most difficult man in the House to follow. The right hon. Gentleman's entertainment value is at a very high level. He always plays to capacity, and a new Member has to face the ordeal of losing the vast audience that came in for the first house. The hon. Member surmounted these difficulties in a very capable fashion and his further interventions in the House will not, I am sure, have the same difficulties and terrors as on the occasion that he adopted just now.
I do not think that the Prime Minister, in his statement with reference to the decision on Wednesday, has done anything like justice to that occasion. There is no doubt that the Government was defeated on a vote about conditions in the Civil Service. I am not going to ask, in face of the Prime Minister's statement, and of the fact that he has made this a Vote of Confidence, that we insist on him establishing equal pay for equal work. Obviously the Government has taken its stand against that view. But I think it will be a break with all the precedents, and I think something of an affront to the House of Commons, if the Government does not review the position of remuneration in the Civil Service from top to bottom. It is quite wrong for the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that Civil Service conditions compare more than favourably with corresponding conditions outside. There are many Departments of the Civil Service where conditions exist which are little less than


sweated labour, Many persons engaged in the public service—office cleaners, part-time postmen, night telephonists, junior clerks, storekeepers, office keepers in various parts of the country—whose wages conditions, both for men and women, are indefensible, and the Prime Minister's statement the other night—I cannot recollect whether he repeated it to-day—of the Fair Wages Clause being the principle on which they stand, has been proved time and again not to be a principle that secures justice to the people. We have heard it used to defend wages of 4d., 5d. and 6d. an hour to public employés, because they could find some sweating employer in the immediate neighbourhood who paid wages of that description for work of a somewhat comparable nature.
I do not suppose that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury will attempt to deny that he has a certain amount of responsibility to bear for the decision of last Wednesday. When his followers do not roll up in the necessary numbers, he must feel that a rose has fallen from has chaplet, or perhaps there is a blot on his escutcheon or some of these other things. I ask him particularly to direct the attention of the Government and the Prime Minister to the fact that there are many grievances in the Civil Service which urgently demand redress, and that the vote of Wednesday night at the very least ought to be taken as a mandate to investigate Civil Service conditions in general with a view to removing conditions which are unworthy of the public service. In the Government of this country there are four partners—Government, Lords, Commons and permanent civil servants. When we begin to weigh up each of these four, no one will come to the conclusion that the civil servant is the least important. Governments change, and Parliaments change, but the Civil Service goes on steadily all the time, carrying very heavy responsibilities from the top to the bottom, and their conditions, men or women, should be such as not merely can be excused but such as we can point to with pride as being the best possible.
I want to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition on his speech, For spirit, for breadth and for depth it is easily the best effort that he has made since assuming the position of leadership of the party

above the Gangway. I certainly agree with his major criticism. I have never known a Government whose moral ascendancy has deteriorated so badly in so short a time. The explanation of it is not merely the ineptitude and contradictions of the policy that is has adopted since the Election. I do not think the country ever wanted it. The Government was elected, not because there was any enthusiasm for it in the country, but because hon. and right hon. Gentlemen were not able to present themselves at that juncture as a suitable alternative. They are there, not with any enthusiasm from the country, but because the country generally could not see a practical alternative at that time. I think my right hon. Friend's speech to-day brings them nearer being a practical alternative, but I am afraid both he and the leader of the Liberal Opposition will have to make quite clear to the country precisely where they stand on the issue of peace and war because, when they dealt with foreign affairs, I was horrified at their jingoism. There could be no other conclusion from their speeches than that their criticism of the Government was that it had not speedily enough landed us into war with Italy and Germany, so that we might have two major wars on our hands.
Let me examine it without any passion or hate. The Government, according to the right hon. Gentleman, had been vacillating in applying the power of the League of Nations against Italy. The right hon. Gentleman makes them responsible for the slaughter of the Abyssinians that is going on to-day because they did not apply sanctions with energy and enthusiasm, as presumably the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends would have done if they had been in office. My hon. Friends and I, before and during the Election and subsequently in the House, have pointed out that sanctions necessarily meant war. Here we come to a position where you have applied every sanction with the exception of oil, and iron and steel.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: The shipping embargo.

Mr. MAXTON: I will bring that in as another. Could any of these three additional sanctions have been applied without having men under arms and ships and aeroplanes ready to go? Could you


have put an embargo on ships, or even oil sanctions, without bringing the Suez Canal definitely into the dispute, and could you have brought the Suez Canal into the dispute without being ready for war? I want to know from the Leaders of the Liberal party and the official Opposition whether they are a war party or a peace party.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: If the hon. Member is asking me, I will tell him shortly. We are a peace party, but he knows perfectly well that we have been drifting perilously near war in recent weeks, and one reason is that we have not enforced the law against Italy in this dispute.

Mr. MAXTON: I am pointing out that, if they are going to start running all over the world as policemen, they had better get their batons in their hands and they had better tell the workers of the country that in the years that lie immediately ahead, until they have established the League of Nations in the mind of the world as the great peace procurer, they have to be ready to shoulder their arms, they have to join the Territorials, the Army and the Navy, because you are not going to get the League of Nations accepted by the Mussolinis or the Hitlers unless you are going to take armed force methods. It is wrong and misleading of the right hon. Gentleman to say he stands for peace, because in the immediate future he stands for war and the training of the peoples of the world through the League of Nations, which has never yet been in agreement on any occasion. You have to teach the world through the League of Nations that any aggressor is going to be met by the armed force of Great Britain.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: The armed force of the League, yes, including Great Britain.

Mr. MAXTON: Yes, led by Great Britain.

Mr. GARRO-JONES: Would the hon. Member be good enough to explain whether he is in favour of allowing the continued export of oil to Italy?

Mr. MAXTON: I have made it perfectly plain in this House again and again that we are not in favour of the application of sanctions at any point. We are absolutely 100 per cent, against it. It is not a substitute for war, it is merely a

preliminary to war. My right hon. Friend spoke strongly, and rightly so, about the conditions that the Abyssinians are in. He says that the responsibility for that lies with the non-strenuous application of sanctions. The responsibility for the condition of the Abyssinians to-day lies in the fact that they were made to believe that sanctions were an effective way of preventing Italy from smashing them. If they had never been misled in that way they would have had to accept what was happening, and the lives of tens of thousands of men would have been saved; or alternatively, in addition to the tens of thousands of Abyssinians gasping out their lives under poison gas there would have been tens of thousands of Britons gasping out their lives alongside them.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Would you export oil?

Mr. MAXTON: The answer I make is this. If you have a capitalist system of society—I notice that the acting Leader of the Labour party laughs at the idea of criticising the capitalist system.

Mr. EDE: He is not here.

Mr. MAXTON: The hon. Gentleman knows to whom I am referring. I have lost knowledge of the hierarchy since I left, and I do not know the different gradations. The hon. Member who usually speaks for the party above the Gangway on foreign affairs is here.

Mr. DALTON: If the hon. Member wishes to bring me to my feet, I was laughing at the sorry state in which he found himself when asked a perfectly straight question, "Are you or are you not in favour of supplying oil from British firms, including the Anglo-Persian, largely owned by the British Government, in order that Abyssinians might be gassed by planes driven with this fuel?" It was at his utter failure to answer that that I laughed.

Mr. MAXTON: The hon. Member laughed before I had even the opportunity of replying. I stand on definite Socialistic principles in this House and I do not have to go shilly-shallying and dodging about. I would prevent any company from selling oil in these conditions or any other conditions, and my hon. Friend may he perfectly certain that in any direction in which we could save the lives of Abyssinians, or


Britishers, or Italians, we would always be ready to support any steps.—[Interruption.] No it is not sanctions. But when the hon. Gentleman and his friends ask us to have millions more mutilated, then we say we part company from them completely. As long as you are out for saving life and preventing the spread of warfare we are with you, but when you go out for a world war to stop a conflagration in one corner we are against you. That is a straight answer, and a Socialist answer. If it does not satisfy the hon. Gentleman it is the best I can do for him.

Miss RATHBONE: Is the hon. Member seriously of opinion that if an oil sanction was put on against Italy, Italy would be in a position, with the Abyssinian war on her hands, to declare war against the British Empire and the League?

Mr. MAXTON: If all the nations of the world united to smash Italy they are capable of doing it. I am satisfied of that, but I have yet to see all the capitalist nations of the world united on that or on any other issue. I see today Great Britain with the possibility of two wars on her hands, and, according to the speeches that I have heard, the Liberal party and the Labour party are in favour of taking on these two wars. I am sorry that I have aroused the wrath of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen above the gangway. Those who were in at the beginning know that I prefaced my remarks by congratulating the Leader of the Opposition, said that their chances of becoming an alternative Government were better to-day than I have seen them for some time, and certainly better than they were at the General Election. But I said that there were one or two things on which they would have to make plain to the electors where they stood, and that was one of the things I referred to, and that was the reason I brought it in, not to argue sanctions or no sanctions. The three sections of the Opposition have everything in common on a Vote of Censure.

Mr. EDE: Have you forgotten the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher)?

Mr. MAXTON: I am sorry if I have identified him too completely with the hon. Gentlemen among whom he sits.

This Government has lost caste in the country and in the House, and the Opposition have to get that Government removed from office as soon as possible. I say that the official Opposition, as the major partner, should be the alternative Government. Before they get a vote of that kind from the country they have to let the country know precisely where they stand on certain issues. Among those the most important at this time is the issue of peace or war. Do not let them start taking on a quarrel with me about it, because on the last day when there was a Foreign Affairs Debate I listened to five first-class speeches from above the Gangway from five first-rank leaders of the Labour party, each putting a different point of view on this issue, each eloquent and plausible. But it does not give the country confidence in a party that, on the major issue confronting the nation, an important section of the House of Commons, aspiring to Government office, should have five different points of view presented in one debate.

Mr. COCKS: Does the hon. Gentleman refer to the Debate last Thursday week? I was present most of the time and saw no conflict of opinion on this side of the House.

Mr. MAXTON: If that be the case the hon. Member should apply at once for the leadership of the party. If he is capable of making one common policy out of those five conflicting views, he is the one man who is wanted. I am sorry that I have detained the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on!"]—I suppose I am not the first person in this House who has been embarrassed by his support rather than by his opposition. This Motion we are discussing has been turned by the Prime Minister into one of confidence in the Government, and has been turned by the Opposition, naturally, into a Vote of Censure on the 'Government. The right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) from his own particular angle has added substantially to the power of the censure. His criticisms, although not from the direction of this side of the House, were very deadly criticisms indeed. I see the position that the Government is in to-day as merely symptomatic of a deterioration which has found its expression in home affairs, in social affairs and in foreign affairs,


and which, if continued, cannot fail to work havoc with the condition of the people of Great Britain, cannot fail to reduce the chances of peace throughout the world; and I suggest to the Government that they should consider now trying to make right the wrong things they have done in home affairs, social affairs and foreign affairs; or failing to do that they should give the electors the opportunity to replace them by some alternative Government.

7.13 p.m.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not wish to embarrass the hon. Gentleman by my support, for I profoundly differ from his outlook on foreign affairs and the means by which he thinks our own safety can be secured, but the hon. Member has done a useful service, for he has challenged us all to think out exactly what we mean by the views that we are expressing in this House. It is not in one part of the House only that uncertainty is visible, that contradictory positions are taken successively, and that the attitude varies from day to day according to the sentimental considerations which affect us, rather than being governed by a clear outlook on the world and a steady appreciation of certain principles which should govern our policy in relation to it. I hope the Government will to-night do something to make their own position more plain.
I join with my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) in urging that we should have a clear and authoritative answer from the Government about the British Colonies and the mandated territories. The article in "The Times" this morning from their Tanganyika correspondent, to which my right hon. Friend referred, shows that it is high time that the Government state clearly and unmistakably what their position is, and that then all Members of the Government should conform their language to that authoritative statement. But the ambiguities go further, and are not confined to the Government. There is the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal party with a vigour and violence of speech denouncing the Government for not having forced upon the League more drastic sanctions in the case of Abyssinia and for not enforcing those sanctions now.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Or to summon the Council of the League.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: To summon the Council of the League. For what purpose? In order that the British representative of the Council should inquire of the Council what they propose to do.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: That is not what I meant.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: It is not what the right hon. Gentleman wants. He wants, and he has called for, a lead from the British Government.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: indicated assent.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The task of the British Government would not be over when they had summoned the Council. They are to go to the League and call upon it for additional sanctions. I do not say that that is wrong. I think that that was the right policy at the beginning, but nobody has the right to urge this Government to take that line, unless they are prepared to meet the challenge of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) not by asking, "What would you do about oil," but by asking what they themselves will do if that action leads to war?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: The right hon. Gentleman could not have been present when I answered my hon. Friend here and another hon. Member. I said clearly that we have resolutely to support the authority of the League and take all measures necessary to enforce the law.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I wish to point out to the House that in very few eases, if in any, will economic sanctions alone be sufficient to deter an aggressor, and that when the aggression has once begun the effect of economic sanctions is very slow. If a war lasts a long time the effect may be very influential on the ultimate result. You have no right to press for sanctions unless you are prepared to make them effective, and you have no right to press them unless you tell our people openly and frankly that with the imposition of sanctions the issue of peace and war passes out of our hands into the hands of the other party. In other words, you ought not to take our people—you have no right to take them—blindfold into a risk, concealing from them what that risk is. I was prepared in the Italo-Abyssinian conflict to


take all those risks, including—[An HON. MEMBER: "The Peace Ballot!"] No, I was not in favour of the Peace Ballot, and how little meaning that has is shown by the profound difference you would get if you put the same questions to our people to-day.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: They support peace.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am trying to put to the House a serious argument on a very serious thing. I hope that I am not being unduly provocative, but I should like to put the argument as clearly as I can to the House without unnecessary interruption. I was prepared to back up, and to go to all lengths with the League at the beginning. I think that if we made a mistake, it was in pressing the League to go so far when it was obviously unwilling and unprepared to go further. The lesson of the Abyssinian war and the action of the League of Nations in regard to it is, that we have to make up our minds in this country, as they have to do in other countries, whether we mean to make collective security a reality or whether it is only to be a decoration to our speeches, and an answer to impatient constituents to whom it appears to promise safety without any risk.
I believe that if you can follow up the League of Nations system, it is the best guarantee that the world can have against war, but you cannot develop that system in the present very imperfect state of the League, without all the members of the League taking great risks and perhaps suffering great losses for causes which are not immediately their own, though they are the causes of common security. It is quite true that we have been unable to restrain Italy and it is quite true that the prospect or the possibility of similar action has been unable to restrain Germany. If an aggressive nation, unable to obtain its purpose by any other means but war, feels itself Strong enough for war, we have those two instances, and they are sufficient, though there are others to prove that paper guarantees will not deter them, and, in the last resort, the only thing that will hold them is the knowledge that a forward movement would mass a still greater force against them than they could command. There is the whole question of the League. It does not lie in whether an oil sanction

is imposed, or in whether the ships of Italy are forbidden our ports. What are they to carry from our ports? Even though they were all laid up, if they were running at a loss or were carrying little cargo, that would not be an effective sanction. It does not lie in that. It lies in the question which each country has to answer. If aggression is proved and declared by the League of Nations, are we willing to put our resources, military and naval, at the service of the League? In the case of Locarno we pledged ourselves definitely to put our whole resources behind the League. We are pledged again in what my right hon. Friend rightly called the courageous speech of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the other night. How far are we prepared to give the same pledge in respect of all our other obligations to other countries? That is the real problem.
The world has become so narrow. Europe, above all, has become so narrow that you have to ask yourselves whether you can keep the peace by sections or whether you must not keep the peace by common action on every occasion whenever it is broken. My right hon. Friend's survey of the result of the German breach of the demilitarisation clauses must, I think, have impressed the House, and will, I hope, be studied carefully in the country. What is happening at the present moment? Nations who are not strong enough to stand by themselves, whose independence, I will not say hangs by a thread, but is certainly not secure, are watching anxiously to see whether there is a collective system which can offer them protection, or whether they must pay ransom to the forces of violence and disturbance. I think that the answer is that that protection can only be given to them through the League of Nations, that they themselves must help, and that the condition of effective action in any case is the whole-hearted co-operation of all in every country. I should like very much to know how far the Government have thought out this matter in the light of our recent experience, and how far they are prepared to put a policy before the country, either explaining the limitations of our action or accepting whole-heartedly the complete support of the League in all the decisions to which it may come.
These are very grave days. We are anxious in this country, I think a little over-anxious, to enter into new conversations with Germany. It is not easy to get. Powers suffering from a grave breach of faith to sit down at once and discuss a new treaty with the party which has broken the old. But if there is to be a meeting, we want to know precisely what is meant by the conditions. We want to know what guarantees there are that such a treaty will be kept if it comes into being, and what sanctions will be avail-able if that treaty too, is broken. I am disturbed by the character of the German proposals. It is hardly yet the time to speak about them, but I am disturbed about the reference to equality of status. One of the earliest things we ought to know is exactly what Germany means by it. Does she mean that she is to have everything that anyone else has, or does she mean something less? Does she mean that the mandated territories which we possess are to be returned to her? That is a question which must be faced. We have a right to ask Germany to say explicitly what she means, and she has the right to ask us, before we accept that as a basis of negotiations, whether we are prepared to give her what she asks.
There are other things. The German proposals offer a series of bilateral pacts of non-aggression. I do not see their relationship to the Covenant of the League. They give no support to the Covenant. Locarno gives support to the Covenant of the League in a particular case. A purely bilateral pact of non-aggression is no guarantee but merely leads you to eat up each morsel separately instead of having to eat them altogether. At the earliest moment at which my right hon. Friend can make a more explicit statement on the part of His Majesty's Government, it is his duty to do so. This Debate ought not to close without all ambiguity as to the attitude of His Majesty's Government with regard to the British Colonies and mandated territories being removed once and for all.

7.31 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): In the circumstances of the Debate it may perhaps be for the convenience of the House if I intervene for a few minutes at this

stage, since so much of the Debate has concerned itself with foreign affairs, and since in certain quarters of the House charges have been directed against the Government which we wish to take the earliest opportunity of meeting. Later in the Debate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will reply for the Government upon other matters, including that which has just been raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain). The Leader of the Opposition when he opened the Debate, indulged himself, and nobody will complain, in a celebration of the victory which the Opposition felt that they had gained a few days ago. Nobody will complain because, as I understand—I was not present—the victory was not of very long duration, only some 10 minutes. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman struck the Government with his first barrel and missed with his second.
When, basing himself upon that incident, the right hon. Gentleman proceeded to give an indictment of Government policy on a wide range and expressed his solicitude for our health, we are touched that he should be anxious, but we are surprised at the testimony which he calls in evidence to support him—Lord Rothermere's newspaper. He has to go there to make sure that the Government are ailing, and I congratulate him on his newfound friendship. He dealt at some length with foreign affairs and gave what I am obliged to call a complete travesty of the history in respect of the earlier phases of the dispute between Italy and Abyssinia. I do not want to weary the House by going back in detail over the past, but none the less the right hon. Gentleman's charges should not be allowed to go unanswered. What he said was that if only the Government had taken a strong line earlier all would have been well. The right hon. Gentleman adduced not one shred of evidence to justify that charge, and he did not do so because there is no evidence that he can adduce.
From the very beginning of this dispute, from the month of December, 1934, when the Wal-Wal incident took place, the Government have been active and unceasing in endeavouring to obtain first a peaceful solution of the problem and then such action as we felt compelled to take under the Covenant. The right hon. Gentleman has perhaps forgotten that from Decem-


ber until just before May last the only issue that we had before us and that the world had before it was the Wal-Wal incident, which in actual fact was eventually settled.

Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: It never came before the League.

Mr. EDEN: It is incredible, the ignorance of the hon. Member.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is it not a fact that for nearly four months before the matter was referred to the League it was discussed by the Stresa Powers only?

Mr. EDEN: That statement could not be further from the facts. The incident took place in December, 1934. The following month, in January, the matter came before the Council of the League. More than that, it was kept before it very largely through the action of His Majesty's Government. It is these wild inaccuracies, which the hon. Member believes are justified and which have no foundation in fact, that are used to make charges against His Majesty's Government, although they have no place in history. The only incident before us in January was the Wal-Wal incident. That was before the Council and it was ultimately settled. It was just before the Council met in May that the matter became internationally of greater significance on account of the troop movements of Italy to the Italian African colonies. It was that which first made the world wonder what was going to be the consequences of this small frontier incident. That was just before the May Council. We went to the May Council with two definite intentions, first, to make sure that all matters connected with this dispute should be submitted to arbitration, and, second, to ensure that the Council should continue to be in charge of the matter right through. Our essential pre-occupation—and we carried it out—was to see that the Council did not adjourn from May until its next ordinary meeting in September. If the right hon. Member will take the trouble to look at the records he will learn something of the difficulty we had in ensuring that the matter was not shelved from May till September. I have here the speech made by the Italian Government's representative at the Council. It was made on a resolution which was pressed

for strongly by His Majesty's Government and eventually adopted. It is no exaggeration to say that it was largely on account of our efforts that it was adopted. He said:
By accepting the arbitration procedure the Italian Government Iliad demonstrated their determination to respect the undertakings entered into by the Italian and Abyssinian Governments in the Treaty of 1928 …
That was a Treaty by which they bad undertaken to submit all questions of dispute to arbitration, and not to have recourse to arms. He further said:
If the Italian Government accepted the conciliation and arbitration procedure they did so because they intended to conform thereto.
That was not said at a hole-and-corner meeting, but before the Council of the League of Nations, where the matter was brought and kept owing to our own efforts. In the month of June, acting on the instructions of His Majesty's Government, I was sent on a mission to Signor Mussolini himself, to make plain the position of our Government in this dispute. Since hon. Members suggest that we never made our position plain I should like to quote three or four sentences which I put before Signor Mussolini. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said: "You never bothered about the League of Nations; you were only thinking about your own interests. You kept the League out of it."
I expressed to Signor Mussolini the grave concern of His Majesty's Government at the turn which events were taking between Italy and Abyssinia. I said that our reasons were neither egoist nor dictated by our interests in Africa but by our membership of the League of Nations. I said that British foreign policy was founded on the League, and that His Majesty's Government could not therefore remain indifferent to events which might profoundly affect the League's future. I said that upon this issue public opinion in this country felt very strongly. It was only through collective security that peace could be secured and only through the League that Britain could play her full part in Europe. It was for this reason that His Majesty's Government had been anxiously considering whether there was any constructive contribution which they could make in order to promote a solution.
That was in June, 1935, at a time when we had put forward a solution the fate of which is fresh in the minds of the House.
I am prepared to stand a challenge on this issue, that throughout this dispute we have been foremost in keeping the matter within the League and before the League of Nations. If the right hon. Gentleman's indictment over this dispute meant anything at all, it meant to anyone listening this afternoon, and to anyone without a memory of what happened, that the charge against the Government is that they have been a drag on the League of Nations all along. The impression that he gave was that the League was anxious to take spirited action if His Majesty's Government had not been continually dragging at their coat-tails to pull them back. If he believes that, he is the only man in Europe who does so. Nor is it possible to adopt the attitude of saying that all that the League did was good, and all that His Majesty's Government did was ill. What the League decided to do may or may not have been good, only history can tell, and it is much too soon to start writing that history this afternoon. Whatever the final verdict may be, responsibility has to be shared by the League and we will take our share, no more and no less. We have done our utmost since the dispute began to fulfil what we believe to be our duty under the Covenant, and we will go on doing so.
I think the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) was not fair to His Majesty's Government in this respect, on what they have sought to do in the last few months, He said, I thought very wisely, last October, when we were debating this subject:
If I am asked, how far will you go in support of the Covenant of the League of Nations, I shall say we ought to go the whole way with the whole lot.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The whole lot of nations, not the whole lot of sanctions.

Mr. EDEN: That, I submit, is precisely the policy that His Majesty's Government have attempted to pursue throughout this very troubled period. I do not think it is possible to say that we could throughout the dispute have never taken the lead and still have fulfilled our obligations under the Covenant.

This country, one of the few great Powers in the League, is so circumstanced that inevitably a special responsibility rests upon us, and I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend's statement of last October, which seems to me clearly to state the Government's policy.
What are the lessons that can be learned, even so far? I think they are important. The first is, that the League, with its limited membership, is inevitably limited in effectiveness. The second is that financial and economic sanctions cannot be immediately effective if the membership of the League is not complete. I do not say that they could not ever he effective, but I say that they cannot be immediately effective. Thirdly—and this is where I disagree with some of my hon. Friends—it may be said that, viewing all that has happened, we ought not to have attempted to stop this war at all. I do not agree. It is impossible to establish international law by abetting breaches of international law, and it may be if we are to see these things correctly we must look at them in a longer perspective than is possible to-night. It may be that when the history of this difficult post-war period is written, when the time comes to assess the attempt to make collective security operative that this unhappy, this tragic war and the lessons derived from it will have been found to have played an important part in establishing a lasting peace.
I should like to say a word or two about recent events in connection with this dispute. Last February the Experts Committee on the oil embargo reported. At the beginning of March I made it clear on behalf of His Majesty's Government that, while admitting the ineffectiveness of the oil embargo, we thought such an embargo should be put on. The French Government took the view, which they were fully entitled to take, that another effort should be made at conciliation before the embargo was put on. The Committee agreed, and the effort was made. Conciliation was accepted by both parties, but in the interval since the acceptance of that conciliation the Italian Government have intensified their aggression. In the view of His Majesty's Government it would be intolerable that we should at Geneva merely speak of conciliation while war continued. There must be real conciliation, that is to say,


conciliation which results in a given period in a cessation of hostilities, otherwise the Committee of Eighteen would have to face its task once again. The position of His Majesty's Government remains exactly the same as it has throughout the dispute. We are prepared to take part with others in economic and financial measures, if others accept them and carry them out in the same spirit and the same measure.
May I turn for a few moments to the other subject which is very much in our minds to-night, that is the situation created by the German Chancellor's reply? I told the House last Friday that the Government were engaged in examining these proposals. That examination is still in progress. A few days ago the French arid Belgian Governments approached His Majesty's Government with a request that we should hold a meeting of the Locarno Powers other than Germany early this week, either in Paris or in Brussels. I confess that we were a little doubtful of the utility of such a meeting at this moment. At any rate, I thought it right to make it clear that His Majesty's Government could not come to a meeting and agree that conciliation was at an end. On the other hand, we thought that an exchange of views might be valuable whether through the ordinary diplomatic channels or direct by Ministers meeting. Since in our view a meeting of the Committee of Thirteen dealing with the Abyssinian dispute was urgently necessary—we have pressed for it and it is meeting on Wednesday—we thought it an opportunity of suggesting to the French and Belgian Governments that during the period of that meeting an opportunity might arise for informal consultations between us. I am glad to tell the House that both the French and Belgian Governments have concurred in that view. I am leaving for Geneva tomorrow, and I understand that M. Flandin and M. Van Zeeland will be there within the next day or two. That will afford an opportunity for exchanging views at Geneva.
The right hon. Member for Epping and the Leader of the Opposition remarked upon the importance in their view of bringing the League into these discussions at the first opportunity. I entirely agree. The German Chancellor's proposals contained, as the right hon. Member for West Birmingham most rightly said, a

number of proposals. Some of them concern the group of Western Powers; some of them concern individual Powers, either in the south or east of Europe. It is in our view essential, if we are not to enter into confusion which might weaken the League, that these proposals should be co-ordinated, and should be co-ordinated by the League. The Leader of the Opposition said that Locarno is too narrow in basis—we must broaden it. He was really simplifying our difficulties too easily. The task is not as simple as that, because the Locarno obligations are there, and we are bound by them. I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that successive Governments have been bound by them, the Government of which he was a Member was bound by the Locarno Treaty, and it will not be a great contribution to confidence in Europe to say that Locarno is much too narrow and must be widened. It would not meet the circumstances. What we must do is to ensure that the League is in charge and co-ordinates and controls our new efforts to create security in Europe. That is exactly the policy of His Majesty's Government in this matter.
I would utter this word of warning. If the idea is that what we ought to do now is to set aside the German Chancellor's proposals, set aside our immediate task which has been created by the violation of the Locarno Treaty and try to negotiate some wide scheme of general settlement for Europe—if that is the idea I want to enter a caveat. I am not so sure that that is the best method to proceed, and I will tell the House why. I am very doubtful whether it is possible or desirable at this moment to negotiate general obligations of mutual assistance all over Europe going beyond the terms of the Covenant itself. We all have general commitments in the Covenant which we must make plain we are prepared to fulfil, but we are equally at liberty to reinforce the Covenant for given circumstances by regional agreements. I want to make clear to the House what my fear is if at this moment we try to get some vast new European settlement on terms other than the Covenant. In trying to obtain that we may lose the immediate objective upon which I think, we should concentrate.
If I may be frank with the House I would say what in the view of the


Government we should wish to see realised by the end of this summer. We should wish to see a complete European membership of the League; all the nations of Europe members of the League. We should wish to see a new structure of security in Western Europe to take the place of Locarno. We should wish to see a strengthening of security elsewhere by arrangements directly supervised and controlled by the League itself. If we could ensure that result by the end of the summer we should have gained so much more security for Europe that it might then be possible to enter upon these larger schemes in respect of armaments and economic matters, and also a strengthening of the security afforded by the Covenant itself. It may seem that the programme I put forward is modest, but we have seen so many grand-scale conferences fail that I believe we should be wiser to seek to make this immediate contribution which can and should be made to the security of Europe.
Let there be no mistake. If the Covenant itself is accepted and reaffirmed by all European States, it must have a stabilising effect. It would mean a recognition by the States that in any question, territorial or otherwise, which faces a nation, they would act only in accordance with the principles and through the machinery of the League. If we can secure that, together with the reinforcement of regional agreements, we shall have made an important step in advance. Finally, I would like to say to the House, that in the present period of extreme difficulty it is none the less true that through all these years the League has grown in strength; that its roots have struck deep. That is why it is imperative that everything we do should be founded on the Covenant. For my part, I hope that not lightly shall we seek to amend that instrument until we are sure, in the first place, that everyone in Europe is ready and willing to fulfil their obligations under that instrument. His Majesty's Government are prepared to do that. In that belief and confidence we shall face the task which now confronts us.

PRISONERS ON TRIAL (POLITICAL OPINIONS).

7.57 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Last Monday I addressed two questions to the Secre-

tary of State for Home Affairs which, I think, are of vital importance, indeed, almost of equal importance to the problems we have been discussing this evening. The Home Secretary, unfortunately, was prevented from being present on that occasion. The two questions were somewhat different in character. One dealt with the sentences which had been impose I on certain of my constituents at a recent Assize trial at Cardiff. After some supplementary questions had been addressed to the Under-Secretary of State, he was good enough, at my invitation, to express on behalf of the Home Secretary his willingness to receive a deputation of hon. Members in regard to those sentences. That being so I do not propose to-night to make any reference whatever to the justice or injustice of those sentences. The problem I desire to raise now is of more general application, and in a sense strikes at the very roots of the liberties of the citizens of this country.
It is one of fundamental importance. In order to bring the circumstances properly before the House let me briefly outline the way in which this matter arises. A certain number of my constituents were prosecuted recently for rioting. They were tried at the Assize Court, and in due time, after prolonged inquiry, the jury brought in their verdict. In this point lies the interest of the discussion which I propose to raise now. In these trials, when the jury has introduced its verdict, it is usual, as the Home Secretary knows far better than I do, for the judge to invite the representative of the police present to indicate whether he knows anything of the record of the prisoner before the court. That course was followed on this occasion. Last week I put to the Home Secretary a question, which was answered by the Under-Secretary, and which I will quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT:
42. Mr. MORGAN JONES asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the growing tendency, when evidence as to a prisoner's previous record is being given by the police in cases of riot or industrial disturbance, to make reference to a prisoner's political opinions; and whether he will take steps to secure that no allegations as to a prisoner's activities shall be made where no previous conviction for such activities has been recorded?
Mr. LLOYD: It is a well-established practice for the courts to call for information from the police as to the antecedents of a convicted prisoner before deciding what sen-


tence, if any, should be imposed, and this practice has been specifically approved by the Court of Criminal Appeal. It is for the court to decide whether such information is relevant and what weight is to be attached to it, and my right hon. Friend does not propose to take any action in the matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th March, 1936; col. 1625, Vol. 310.]
To summarise fairly and not inaccurately the subsequent proceedings in the House on that occasion, I think I can say that Supplementary Questions were addressed to the Under-Secretary in regard to that particular matter and he cited to me what was, in his opinion, the guiding principle in these matters when they come before the courts. He cited the guidance laid down by Lord Alverstone when he was Lord Chief Justice.
Now, the judgment to which the Under-Secretary referred was given in a case known as the Douglas Campbell case, recorded in the reports of the Court of Criminal Appeal for 1911, Volume 6, page 131. I have that volume before me and, if necessary, could read the whole judgment, but it is apposite to recall to the House that the particular prisoner, Douglas Campbell, had in fact been prosecuted at a lower court, and at the point at which the verdict had been introduced by the jury, evidence such as that to which I am referring to-night had been adduced concerning his character. In that case the police witness stated that the prisoner had been previously convicted, but he also added other observations concerning the prisoner in relation to which there was no previous conviction, and that became the subject of an appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal. It was on that occasion that Lord Alverstone gave his judgment.
It is very important that we should be clear as to what precisely happened on that occasion. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will deny that Lord Alverstone was laying down the rules of the court in respect of evidence such as that to which I am referring, but in the judgment of Lord Alverstone there is a reference to the Prevention of Crime Act, 1908, Section 10, Sub-section 5, upon which I understand the Under-Secretary based his position in replying to me last week. I must, however, point out that Sub-section 5 states in the most explicit terms that it refers simply to the rights of habitual criminals. In the case which I am dis-

cussing, I am raising the issue of the rights of courts, as a general rule, to allow evidence to be adduced at that stage of the proceedings dealing not with a person's past criminal record, but having clear and explicit reference to the prisoner's political opinions. I venture to say that no question can be raised in this House of more fundamental importance to people who have the misfortune to be haled before the courts than the fundamental right which they enjoy that no reference shall be made to their political opinions when they are before the court.
I do not wish to base my remarks simply upon these individual instances. I am dealing with the matter as a general principle, for it is that with which I am concerned. I will not, therefore, refer to these individuals as persons, but merely indicate them by numbers. Here is a summary of what happened. A prisoner is before the court; a police witness is called upon to give evidence concerning him, and this is what is said:
No. 1 was a recognised leader of the disruptive elements in -the district; was an active militant agitator of the worst type.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): Is this evidence given on oath by a witness in the court?

Mr. JONES: After the jury had introduced their verdict, it was given by the police superintendent, at the invitation of the judge and obviously on oath.

Mr. SPEAKER: Is a witness giving evidence on oath at the invitation of the judge not in the same position as any other witness?

Mr. JONES: Qua witness yes; but my submission is that this is a fundamental matter affecting the rights of prisoners generally, because the case has been decided and the verdict given. Therefore, I raise the question of the fundamental rights of prisoners in courts generally to be free from having evidence given at that stage as to their political convictions.

Mr. SPEAKER: I would like to know to what extent responsibility rests upon the Home Secretary in an affair of this kind. I cannot see that he has any responsibility or any control over the evidence given by a witness on oath at the direction of the judge. It is true, I understand, that this evidence is given


after conviction and before the criminal is sentenced.

Mr. JONES: May I read a passage from the observations of the Lord Chief Justice in the case I have cited? It reads:
We have been asked to say something about the practice of police officers giving the judge the result of their inquiries about prisoners. In ordinary circumstances we should not accede to such a request, but as the matter has recently been under the consideration of the judges and the Home Office, we think it right to do so.
It is clear, therefore, that the Home Office have something to do with this question of the quality of the evidence given in courts at that stage. If I have established that point, let me continue to read some of the allegations made, for it is vital that the Home Office should take steps at once to bring this practice to an end.

Mr. SPEAKER: Is it not open to counsel for the defence to examine the witness on the evidence?

Mr. JONES: Other people who are much more learned in the law than I am can answer that question. My submission still is that the Home Office ought to have consultations with the judges with a view to seeing that this practice ceases at the earliest possible moment. I think I am well-founded in saying that the Home Office have a responsibility in the matter.

Sir J. SIMON: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Member unnecessarily, and I am entirely at the service of the House in any observations I make; nor am I seeking to stop any discussion. I would like to point out that the very passage which the hon. Member has quoted goes on to give an answer to the question which you put, Sir. It states:
If the prisoner wishes to deny anything he can, especially if he is represented by counsel, do so at the time. … If the prisoner challenges any statement, it is the duty of the judge to inquire into it; if necessary he should adjourn the matter, and if it is of sufficient importance he may require legal proof of it. Or he may ignore it, and if he does so be should state that he is not taking it into consideration.
That is an answer to your question, Sir.

Mr. JONES: The passage then goes on to say:
If the prisoner does not challenge the statements, the Court may take them into consideration, and no injustice is likely to be done. Very often it is in the prisoner's

interest that his antecedents should be stated; if it is not so, than is not the fault of the police, but of tie antecedents.
Therefore, I submit that in the case which I am citing, the mind of the court was actually influenced. I wish, however, to maintain my position simply on the general proposition as to whether it is right that the Home Office should ignore this growing practice. I say that the Home Office have a responsibility in the matter and that they must not attempt to shuffle off that responsibility. It is or the purpose of building up a case to prove the existence of that tendency that I am now giving instances to the House.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will realise that my only concern in this matter is the responsibility of the Home Office. I do not at present know whether the Home Office has any responsibility or whether it has not.

Mr. WISE: Is not the point that the Home Office could issue instructions to its police officers, not to produce political records when asked for evidence of character?

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that this "evidence," as it is called, that is tendered after verdict is not in fact evidence at all? It is hearsay by the police which could not be proved by that type of evidence in court. In the case referred to the Lord Chief Justice was speaking of the convenience of allowing the police to make statements, sometimes on oath and sometimes not on oath, because otherwise great difficulty and expense would be involved in proving the facts by legal evidence. It is because the Home Office permit their police officers to collect the material and repeat in court hearsay which is not evidence, that the practice has grown up of accepting that hearsay in lieu of evidence. I understand it is that practice which my hon. Friend desires to challenge.

Sir J. SIMON: I shall be very glad to deal with the particular case which has been raised, but I hope I shall be allowed to say at this stage to my hon. and learned Friend first, that the police are not the Home Office police at all, and, secondly, that there is no ground whatever for saying that the Home Office encourages any such practice as has been suggested.

Mr. HOPKIN: In these cases the police sometimes say a prisoner has been suspected for a long time of a certain offence. In that case it is difficult, indeed almost impossible, for defending counsel to follow up each and every one of the statements which are made, and in my submission the Home Office could easily issue regulations as to the nature, purport and purpose of the statements which the police are to give in evidence at that juncture in a case.

Mr. SPEAKER: It seems to me that the question is whether a police witness or any other witness called at that stage of the case gives evidence on oath or not. There may be cases in which such a witness does not give evidence on oath but if he does then it appears to me that he is in the same position as any other witness examined in the case, and I cannot see how the Home Office or anybody else has any responsibility for what a witness says in court.

Mr. WISE: Is it not the case, Mr. Speaker, that even if he is giving evidence on oath it is not definitely necessary for him to refer to the political opinions of the accused; and is it not possible for the Home Office to issue a circular to the police saying that that should not be done.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: That is my point, and I was about to cite cases bearing on that simple issue of whether it is permissible or not to cite evidence concerning a man's political opinions.

Mr. FYFE: In furtherance of what you, Mr. Speaker, have just said, may I point out that when a police officer goes into the witness box and is sworn the oath which he takes follows a certain form? He is to answer truthfully such questions as the judge may address to him. How would it be possible for him, if he is to comply with his oath, to give an account of a man's antecedents and to blot out certain matters. If I may say so, with respect, the point which you, Mr. Speaker, raised a moment ago, seems to touch the matter very closely. Is it not a question of the oath which the witness takes when he goes into the box?

Sir S. CRIPPS: What the police constable is prepared to tell the judge depends entirely on the inquiries which he has been instructed by his direct

superior to make. If he goes into the box, not having made any inquiries then, whatever his oath may be, he cannot give the information to the court. As far as the London police are concerned, the Home Secretary, of course, has absolute power to arrange what inquiries shall or shall not be made. As far as the police in other districts are concerned he has the power which is often exercised of circularising chief constables, advising them how they should carry out their duties in this matter. In both these ways, he is able to influence this matter of the collection of information in one direction or the other.

Mr. GALLAGHER: As one who has had experience of the sort of evidence which is submitted, in many cases, by the police after conviction may I say that in my own case all they have done has been to repeat my previous convictions. Will the Home Secretary say that it is permissible for a police officer to come in after conviction and say to the judge, "This man is a good Conservative," or "This man is a wicked Communist"?

Mr. MORGAN JONES: May I continue to develop my point. In support of my case I must show that this practice exists and in order to do so I propose to cite certain cases. In a recent case a man whom I shall describe as prisoner No. 1 was declared to be
a recognised leader of the disruptive elements in the district and an active militant agitator of the worst type.
That referred solely to his political opinion and everyone understood it to be so. It was also said that he had
taken a leading part in the industrial trouble in the area since October, 1934; that he had spread pernicious views; that he had created trouble where peace and harmony prevailed for over eight years; that the police looked upon him as a menace to the youth of the neighbourhood and that there was no doubt that a number of men and youths now accused with him, had been led astray by his teachings.
I submit that it is time the Home Secretary took steps to establish the fact that references of that sort to views which a prisoner may or may not have held, or to teachings for which he may or may not have been responsible are not proper in a court of law. In the next case the prisoner whom I propose to describe as No. 2 was said to be


a militant agitator of the worst type, spreading pernicious views.
It is no business of the police to determine whether people's views are pernicious or not and it is not necessarily illegal to spread what may be regarded as "pernicious" views. It may be foolish to do so but, again, it depends on what constitutes "pernicious views." In my judgment the views which the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary entertain are very pernicious but I should not like to hale them before a court and have them sent to gaol on that account.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am not arguing with the hon. Member as to whether certain views are pernicious or not, but, surely, counsel for the defence in these cases could challenge those statements. I do not know, but I imagine that it would be open to counsel to do so.

Mr. JONES: I am afraid I am in the same position as yourself, Mr. Speaker, in that respect. I cannot argue as to what counsel for the defence could or could not do at that stage of the proceedings. I submit, however, that whether counsel for the defence could have challenged the statement or not is not the point. My point is that it is wrong, as a general principle, in the courts to introduce reflections by witnesses on people's political opinions.

Mr. SPEAKER: But the question which I am raising is whether counsel for the defence could not have stopped that being done.

Sir S. CRIPPS: May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that counsel for the defence could not have known until the very moment it was made that any such accusation was going to be made against his client. Therefore, he could not get any instructions as to the views of his client or any information as a basis for cross-examination. The judge asked what were the antecedents of the prisoner and the statement was made. That statement might influence the mind of the judge, as such statements might influence the minds of magistrates or anyone else to whom they were made.

Mr. SPEAKER: Does it not then seem to come to this, according to the hon. and learned Member, that it is the duty of the Home Secretary to give instructions to the judge?

Sir S. CHIPPS: No, it is the duty of the Home Secretary to tell the police not to collect such information and not to make such statements. If they were told that these matters were immaterial and that they were not to spend time in making inquiries as to whether people held pernicious views or not they would not be able to furnish such information to the judge.

Mr. HOPKIN: Is it not possible for the Home Secretary to give information to the police that in these cases they should limit themselves first of all to matters which could be brought forward in favour of the prisoner, and secondly simply to the previous convictions, and stop at that?

Mr. FYFE: With regard to the point of Order put by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), if there is any doubt about the practice at all, I submit that there should not be. It is done invariably from day to day in courts of law, and when these circumstances arise counsel for the defence, if he is not instructed upon them, immediately takes instruction, and if he is not then able to deal with them, he applies, as is suggested by Lord Alverstone, for an adjournment till the matter can be dealt with. My hon. and learned Friend knows as well as anyone that these matters arise daily in the courts and are dealt with, and it would indeed be a reflection on counsel for the defence if it were suggested that they were unable to deal with them.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: There was not any charge as to political opinions. It was something entirely irrelevant which was brought up, and it is this practice which I am challenging here to-night.

Sir JOHN WITHERS: On a point of Order. Surely this question is not a question of evidence at all, but of unsworn information given to the court after sentence?

Mr. JONES: Yes, and it is intended undoubtedly to influence the sentence.

Mr. SPEAKER: I understand the evidence given is on oath.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Before magistrates the evidence is not always on oath. No doubt in an assize court it is, but exactly


the same practice is carried on before magistrates, where the police are constantly making statements not on oath.

Mr. SPEAKER: The particular case now under discussion was before a Judge, I understand.

Mr. JONES: Yes, at Cardiff Assizes. I was trying to give a series of allegations that were made by a police witness at, I suggest, an inappropriate stage dealing with the political convictions or actions of prisoners. The third case is referred to in this way—"continually in the company of known agitators." With great respect, Mr. Speaker, so are you, and a good number of them, either agitators for our political faith or for the opposite faith, and I do not see at all how a statement of that sort can be made except with the intention of influencing the mind of the Judge concerning the opinions of the prisoner before the court. Here is No. 4—"a known agitator. "No. 5—"an active part in the dispute." No. 6—"a leader of the unemployed workers and had extreme views." No. 7—and this is an extraordinary statement—"inclined to violence." How he is able to say that, I do not know. If he was violent I could understand, but how does a man know whether a person is inclined to violence or not? It is beyond my imagining. So with the next prisoner—"inclined to violence." No conviction was stated, because there was none. There was no conviction recorded against any of these people, and yet in order to produce some sort of evidence, information is given concerning their political affinities. I submit that that really is most improper. No. 9—"violent and undisciplined." No. 10—"a chapel deacon with supposed religious views, but his behaviour on the day was anything but religious."
It really is monstrous for people to be haled before the court and treated in this way. If they are deemed to have done wrong, to have broken the law, by all means prosecute them, and let your jury produce their verdict—I do not complain—but I do complain, and complain very strongly, of any attempt, at the stage when the evidence has been completed and the verdict produced, to weight the scales against the prisoner on the basis of his political convictions. I think there is not a single person in

this House, either Conservative, or Liberal, or Labour, or Communist, who will challenge the proposition that it is vital, especially in areas like mine, when people are haled before the courts on charges like these that they shall think they are having a square deal on the merits of the case against them and nothing else. I submit that this kind of tendency seems to grow, and I submit that it is not permissible to pursue all kinds of ramifications into people's past political activities and to produce them in court so as to weight the case against them more heavily. There was not a single citation in any of the cases of a previous conviction.
I am in the strongest disagreement politically with one of these men. I rarely have a meeting in that area but he and I have a set to about political matters, but he has his rights, his elementary rights, and it is those elementary rights that I am contending for here to-night, The Home Secretary is a distinguished lawyer, and I ask him, Is it illegal to be an agitator in this country, is it illegal to be a militant agitator, and is it illegal to be a militant agitator of the worst type, whatever that may be? Apparently there are types of militant agitators; there are bad, and worse, and worst. I do not know where the Home Secretary stands in that category, but presumably the police witness would say he is bad only. Is it illegal to be constantly in the company of agitators? I have never heard that it is. If so, I repeat we are all breaking the law in this House, for there are agitators galore in this place on both sides. I submit, therefore, that it is a monstrous thing if a practice of giving evidence of this sort grows up. I admit that no particular brand of politics was actually cited. No one was denominated as a Socialist, or a Communist, or a Liberal, or a Labour man, but they were "militant agitators of the worst type," and a wink is as good as a nod in many of these cases.
Moreover, I ask this: Who is a police officer anyway to determine whether agitation is of the worst type or not? Suppose we had a jury made up for the most part of people not of Conservative opinions, and say, the Under-Secretary of State was haled before them on some count on which I am sure he would never get there, and let us suppose that


someone brought against him the allegation that he was a militant agitator in the Conservative cause. It might be for the setting up of communities of "Imps" all over the place. Would that be illegal? It is almost comic in a way, but it is frightfully tragic, and we must see to it, especially in areas like mine where industrial feelings are apt to grow bitter at times, that these people shall feel that their political opinions are not known when sentence is passed upon them. The whole purpose of this evidence was to weight the sentences against them. I think I shall carry everyone with me when I say that in a time like this we must do what we can to secure the purity of the administration of our law. We are all proud of it. It has many shortcomings at times no doubt, but, on the whole, it is something of which Britishers might well be proud. People of my neighbourhood, however, are, with these facts before them, in serious danger, to put it mildly, of losing all confidence in the fairness of the courts.
It is not-illegal to be a Communist, or to propagate Communist opinions, and it is not illegal to agitate. Every reform worth while that this country has seen has come from someone's agitation. Agitation is vital to progress. If men are to be indicted in courts, let them be indicted on the ground that they have broken the law, and, when the verdict has been given, let that be sufficient and do not let there he irrelevant information given by people who desire to weight the case more heavily against those who happen to be under suspicion. I am sorry to have to speak with such vigour upon this point, but I know these people so well, I have lived with them so long. While I deplore everything that seems to smack of rioting or irregularity against the law, I say it is a distressing thing when those whose business is to administer the law seem to give ground for the belief that certain political opinions are unwelcome when the cases of those who hold them come before the courts.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and I am still not very clear whether there is any responsibility of the Home Office in this matter. I

should like to ask that question directly of the Home Secretary.

Sir J. SIMON: I do not dispute that it is possible to imagine a circular from the Home Office, certainly within the area of the Metropolitan Police, possibly as a matter of suggestion to the police elsewhere, in order to point out the limits which ought to be observed in preparing the material which may be called for by the court. I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite about that and to that extent it is a matter which would naturally be raised in Debate. Of course, I do not quite accept the version of the facts that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) has detailed. Perhaps I have not as full information as he has, I but I wish to submit, as a, matter that must be plain throughout, that the Home Secretary has no sort of responsibility for the testimony which is given in any court of law by any witness. A policeman, so far as I know, in a case like that at Cardiff, is like any other witness. He is sworn to tell the truth, and to answer such questions as are put to him, and I should be very much concerned if we were to turn our whole constitutional system upside down and suggest that a member of the Executive has a right to say what evidence a police witness should give. I must answer your question, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, by saying that within the limits of a suggestion of a circular it is a matter for the Home Office.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the statement he has made, because it has clarified the position considerably. It is obvious that, in so far as the Home Office can give instructions or recommendations by circular as to the type of evidence a policeman may give, the Debate is in order. Anything further than that comes outside the scope of the Home Office as far as this particular case is concerned, and any reflection on the judges is also out of order without a substantive Motion.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. WISE: I will endeavour to keep, as strictly as possible within your Ruling. While doing so it is still possible, I think, to reflect upon the case as outlined by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) who as


advocatus diaboli put up an extremely good case. The question really before us is whether the Home Office ought to issue certain instructions to police officers throughout the country, and whether it is public policy that they should do so. On this case, which has been chosen as an example, I would submit it is definitely not public policy. The evidence which was given was not, as the hon. Member properly and fairly said, evidence of political leanings.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: But it indicated political leanings all right.

Mr. WISE: The definition of "agitator" usually implies belonging to one of the parties of the Left, and in this particular case obviously that word did imply that, but it was not in fact specified. Let us take the definition as it stands. These people were described as violent agitators, as addicted to subversive views, as holding extreme views and disruptive views. In one case, that of the deacon of a chapel, rather more details were given, but not so many as the judge gave afterwards when he referred to the deacon's evidence as the worst bit of perjury he had ever heard in his life.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: As a matter of fact, that old man is a Welshman who cannot speak English. He complained during the case that he could not understand the proceedings. He was asked by counsel what the word "picketing" was in Welsh, but I would defy anyone to say what it is in Welsh.

Mr. WISE: I accept that explanation, but there is also this witness's behaviour in the witness box, and I think that from the judge's description it must have gone further than a question of language. Those men were charged with rioting in an area where, unfortunately, such conduct has been all too prevalent. If they are to be given a free run for their subversive opinions they must give some undertaking or show in some way that they are ready to give other people a free run for their non-subversive opinions, and I submit that there is no evidence of such toleration in those Welsh valleys. We have had case after case—[An HON. MEMBER: "Who is we?"]—the country, for which, I believe, we sometimes endeavour to speak in this

House—in those Welsh valleys of men who, because they do or do not belong to some particular trade union suffer very great pressure, not only moral but physical.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member suggest that that is a responsibility of the Home Secretary?

Mr. WISE: With due submission, yes, because it would be quite possible to say that some of the victimisation was due to the imperfect enforcement of the Trade Disputes Act, which is the business of the Home Office.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: The hon. Member is now discussing the rightness or the wrongness of the verdicts, though I was particularly careful to avoid making any reference to the verdicts.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I did not gather that the hon. Member was discussing verdicts. It appeared to me that he was raising a completely different point, for which I am doubtful whether any Government Department is responsible.

Mr. WISE: I am trying to justify the fact that these people were described, as they were rightly described, and ought to continue to be described if ever they are tried again, as violent agitators holding subversive opinions. I submit that that evidence was properly put forward, and should not in any way be discouraged by any Home Office Circular. I wanted to show to what an extent the black blot of agitation had made these valleys an almost intolerable place for many people to live in, and that, therefore, as a matter of public policy, it is perfectly right that anybody addicted to that form of agitation should be dealt with, and that when they are tried for actual riot their previous incitements to riot and their encouragement of violence throughout the valleys should be taken into consideration as a relevant fact.

Mr. GALLACHER: On a point of Order. These men were not charged with inciting to riot and I contend that the hon. Member has no right to bring in the question of incitement to riot, which is a very serious charge.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order.

Mr. WISE: There have been cases throughout the whole of these valleys of men who have wanted to work during the course of an industrial dispute—that was the occasion on which these men were charged with riot—and in the exercise of that right to work, which is a fundamental right of every citizen and not to be denied him by any organisation, these men have been subjected as a result of agitation to extreme hardships and, in many cases, physical assault. Their wives, too, have been subjected to assault, and have been unable to leave their houses without insult; and their children have been chased home because their fathers were trying to work. With those conditions existing in those valleys I submit that there is no excuse whatever for not bringing up against these men evidence of their having previously created that trouble and that distress. On this one occasion they were tried and convicted, and I sincerely trust that if any instructions are issued by the Home Office in the form of a circular, they will only be to encourage the police to arrest more and get more convicted for doing the same thing. Those men are denying to their fellows the rights which they claim for themselves. They are claiming the right to propagate political opinions—the hon. Member opposite claimed it. What sort of right would an official of the Miners Industrial Union have to propagate his opinions in one of those valleys?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That does not appear to be a matter which arises here.

Mr. WISE: I accept your ruling, and would only conclude by saying that I hope that no instructions will be issued by the Home Office to deter the production of this sort of evidence. Agitation is a crime if it is directed to wrong ends, and I do not think the hon. Member for Caerphilly would deny that the agitation referred to—

Mr. SILVERMAN: The hon. Member has just described agitation as a crime. I wonder whether he would like to inform the House where that crime is defined by statute, or where in the Common Law any definition of that crime may be found.

Mr. WISE: I do not want to enter into a long legal dispute with an hon. Member

who knows as little of the law as myself, but I suggest that there are such things as sedition, treason, high treason and—I really cannot give way any more, I have been interrupted several times already. As the hon. Member for Caerphilly says, agitation in this case meant Communist agitation, definitely subversive of the existing order in this country, and in this specific case it was agitation directed to encouraging physical violence against their fellows. [An HON. MEMBER: "That was not the charge."] The charge was using physical violence. They had no right to indulge in that sort of agitation in the past, and I submit that it was only right and proper that testimony about it should have been given at their trial, and that it was a perfectly fair conviction. It is impossible, of course to say what effect that evidence had, and it would be improper to do so on their sentences, but even if it had had the effect of trebling the sentences they world otherwise have been given—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member now appears to be perilously near criticising the action of one of His Majesty's judges, which cannot be done except upon a substantive Motion.

Mr. WISE: No, Sir, I was endeavouring to approve of the action of one of His Majesty's judges.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is equally out of order.

8.54 p.m.

Mr. EDE: The hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Wise) has encountered rather heavy weather in trying to keep within the bounds set for the Debate, but I think it is as well that his speech should have been delivered in the particular circumstances of to-day, because, after all, we are here to-day vindicating the constitutional liberties and position of this House, and my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) has seen fit to raise a matter of the very greatest importance, namely, the impartiality of the courts and the way in which evidence presented on behalf of the Crown is collected and delivered. Strictly it all relates to that one point, the way in which, on occasions, police present this evidence. Sitting on the bench myself I have more than once had grave misgivings. The Under-Secretary


of State was asked to-day by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) a supplementary question about aged magistrates who abstained from their duties. My principal fear as a magistrate is of my aged colleagues who insist upon sitting on the bench beside me.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now criticising the magistrates.

Mr. EDE: I apologise if I have transgressed your Ruling. One notices on occasion that a policeman is speaking in a very loud voice for reasons which, after the recent Ruling of Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I must not even hint at. The policeman has attempted to convey to them that the person in front of them is, in the words of the hon. Member, an agitator. Might I ask the hon. Gentleman to try to realise what might happen to himself if a Socialist State were established in this country and the benches were appropriately filled?—

Mr. WISE: May I point out that the Opposition are always liquidated in Socialist States?

Mr. EDE: —and if it were suggested, after a speech made by hon. Members to the Economic League, that they were agitators with subversive views.

Mr. WISE: We should be shot.

Mr. EDE: The hon. Member wants to shoot men intellectually now. As far as this House is concerned, to shoot a man intellectually is a crime not far short of shooting him physically. If the police are at liberty to give that sort of evidence on behalf of the Crown, the days of liberty in this country are very likely to be circumscribed.
I wish to deal with the circumstances in which this Debate has arisen. All too easily we have passed from the circumstances that brought us to to-day's discussion, but I want to go back for a moment to the point at which we started -this afternoon, and particularly to remarks which were made on Thursday last in this connection, by the Prime Minister He said that the vote last Wednesday, the first vote, could be ignored, because it was taken in a small House. I hope that the hon. Member for Smethwick will not leave the Chamber, because I want

to allude to the distinguished part that he played in last Wednesday's proceedings. In 1923 occurred the precedent which we have been examining more than once in the last few days, when the Government were beaten in a House of 287 Members. On that occasion the present Prime Minister, after some preliminary hesitation, was emphatic in the view that he adopted about the position of the House. On the day after the House had to be adjourned owing to the state of disorder which the preliminary refusal to take any notice of the House had created, he said:
I have studied very carefully the Debate on Tuesday, I have listened to what the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, I have listened to two speeches this afternoon, and of course, I have taken note of the vote which occurred on Tuesday, and it is quite clear that the general desire of the House, as expressed in that vote, is to have an inquiry.
He proceeded to give effect to it, and he said:
I think those words"—
which he read out, of his terms of re-ference—
give effect to everything that the House desires, as expressed in the speeches delivered and in the vote given on Tuesday."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th April, 1923; cols. 1344–5; Vol. 162.]
That was in response to a vote of only 287, whereas last Wednesday's vote was a, vote of 308 Members. If a vote of 287 compelled the attention of the Government in 1923, it is strange that it should be urged in 1936, when the normal majority of the Government is a great deal higher than it was, that a vote of 308 could be ignored. That number is more than half the House. If one deducts the Speaker and the Chairman and Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means, there are only 612 Members. As there is one vacant seat, the number left is 611. More than half the House were therefore in the Division Lobbies. May I draw attention to the composition of the Lobbies on that occasion? In the first Division there were, on the Government side, 140 Conservatives, eight National Liberals, one National Labour and one Independent Nationalist. In the Opposition Lobby there were 22 Conservatives, four National Liberals, three National Labour as against one in the Government Lobby, one Independent National, one Independent Liberal, 12


Opposition Liberals, one Communist, four Members of the Independent Labour party and 110 Members of the Labour party. A more complete exposition of a united front has never been shown anywhere in the world. There were 158 Members, including tellers, in the Opposition Lobby, and the Government were beaten by eight votes. There could be no doubt that that represented the opinion of the House that the Motion which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) was entitled to the very serious consideration of the Government and that some effort should be made to implement her suggestion.
Every Member who went into the Opposition Lobby knew what he was doing. I spoke to several Members who normally vote with the Government and they all knew what they were doing. They hoped that 31 Members were supporting the Government, and that there would be sufficient Government Members in the Government Lobby not to produce the result that was actually produced. They hoped that there would be a sufficient number of Members obeying the Government Whip to destroy the effect of what they were doing. I saw the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Lovat-Fraser) who voted against the Government in the first Division, and I have no doubt that the hon. Member hoped he would be able to go down to his constituency and say, "In spite of what they say about Members on the Government side being bound to vote with the Whips, I defied them. I went into the Opposition Lobby. I support your case, and I have given you evidence of it."
The moment the Government realised they were in danger the most extraordinary thing happened. The Government Whip seems to have departed from what one understands is the usual practice on these occasions. No Whip was left at the door at the top of the stairs. The Government Whips appeared to have been formed into a sort of battle police, to scour the rear of the fighting front and whip up the laggards, and particularly to deal with those who were firing on their own side, with the result that we had an extraordinary spectacle. I see the Minister of Pensions on the Front Bench. He voted in the first Division,

but he was absent when the second Division was called, and he was not the only deserter. All the military seem to have gone wrong. The Secretary of State for War voted in the first Division, but not in the second; and his Financial Secretary did the same thing. The Under-Secretary of State for India vanished, and, although it is true that some other Ministers were found to take their places, we have the extraordinary state of affairs that, in the first Division, eight Cabinet Ministers who sit in this House voted with the Government and eight were absent. The hon. Member for Smethwick voted in the first Division, but disappeared from the Division Lobby when the Tellers counted—

Mr. WISE: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I absented myself from voting in the first Division, but voted in the second.

Mr. EDE: Yes, I am sorry; I have the correct note here. I accept the correction the hon. Member has given me. I think it is necessary to draw attention to the way in which these Lobbies were constituted. In the first Division, six Conservative Ministers were present, one National Liberal, and one National Labour. Three Conservatives were absent, and three National Liberal and two National Labour. In the second Division, owing to the way in which Conservative Ministers appeared and disappeared during the proceedings, there were still six Conservative Ministers, but they were different ones from those who took part in the first Division. The Home Secretary remained the only representative of the National Liberal party in the Cabinet who took part in the Division; his two colleagues, the Minister of Labour and the President of the Board of Trade, did not find it convenient to take part in either Division. But in the second Division there were two National Labour Ministers, and those who were in the House will recollect that, when we reached the stage of the second Division being taken, there was some ironical cheering from the Opposition Lobby. That was caused by the fact that we saw the Lord President of the Council, who had not voted in the first Division, being escorted into the Government Lobby between a corporal's guard of a couple of Government Whips—the manly shoulders that looked so fine and erect in the


salons of Londonderry House bowed when he was marched in as a deserter, and the face that duchesses love to kiss suffused with the shame of having once again to vote against his principles in order to retain office.
I venture to say that there is something more in this Division than has been admitted yet by the Government. The figures of the Ministers, apart from the Cabinet Ministers, who voted, show that this was left to the Conservative party to carry, and, with the exception of the Home Secretary and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, the National Liberals were absent. In the first Division the only National Labour Minister or Member who voted with the Government was the Secretary of State for the Dominions—like Casabianca, the boy upon the Treasury Bench without even the support of his father. But he was more lucky that Casabianca, because daddy was found, and brought to give some consolation and advice before the ship blew up. There are, I understand, 10 National Labour Members in this House. Only one of them voted with the Government in the first Division, but, when the Whips cracked and the second Division was called, seven of them were in the Government Lobby. The hon. Member for Lichfield, the hon. Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Markham), and the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Nicolson), voted with the Opposition in the first Division; in the second Division they voted with the Government. In the first Division the Second Church Estates Commissioner, who sits for Central Leeds, was absent, but the ferrets found the little rabbit bolting for his hole, and in the second Division he was here. But the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies eluded them both times. I have no doubt that he knows a "better 'ole" than either the hon. Member for Central Leeds or the Lord President of the Council when it pays him to be out of the way. It is clear that the National Labour party, whatever else it may stand for, can no longer claim that it stands to make any effective contribution towards the affairs of this country. Its members stand up to the Government when they think the Government will not be beaten, but, when the Whips call on them to do their part, they do it, and they do it better in supporting Tory Members than

either of the other wings of the National party that sit on the benches opposite.
There was a good lady in the Gallery on Wednesday night who heard my hon. Friend the Member for South Leeds (Mr. Charleton) read out the figures, and, when she heard them, she clapped—she thought she had won. An. attendant, quite rightly, turned her out. That incident reminds me of the first time my father took me to Epsom races. He was a sound Nonconformist, but, being a native of Epsom, he always went to see the Derby and backed his fancy. It was the great year in which Ladas won, and my father put a modest half-crown on Lord Rosebery's horse. Being only a boy at the time, and it being my first time there, as the horses went round and I saw the jockeys' beautiful jackets I drew his attention to them, but he refused to look, and when the race was over he said to me, "My boy, when you have been to Epsom races as often as I have, you will know that the proper persons to watch are not the jockeys, but the book-makers. I have seen them run a great deal faster than any horse that was ever foaled." That lady, if she believes in the British Constitution, has been welshed. The numbers went up all right and her horse's number was in the top place. She has been told, I have no doubt, possibly by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, that if you can convince the House of Commons you can get what you want. That lady had a majority in the House of Commons on Wednesday night. It was no snap Division. The Minister of Labour was not there. He is too artful to be caught giving a reactionary vote if he can avoid it. But he is in bad company. The last time I was in my constituency he was in Jarrow preaching. I suggest that the next time he goes he should give out the hymn the first line of the second verse of which is:
There is a land of everlasting spring,
It is a long way from Jarrow.
There everlasting spring abides,
And never withering flowers.
But let him remember the next two lines; they are very true of his Government:
Death, like a narrow sea, divides,
That heavenly land from ours.
There is no doubt that the Government was defeated on Wednesday night. I do not know why hon. Members defeated it, but they went into the Opposition Lobby,


and put more votes there than in the Government Lobby, to take out certain words. What did they propose to insert if not my hon. Friend's Amendment? Did they propose to ask His Majesty to give everyone an additional ticket in the Royal Enclosure at Ascot? Did they think they would ask the chief groom of the National stud to tell us the best tip for the Derby? That vote, as Erskine May says, is bound to be interpreted as a vote for the Amendment.
As the result of what happened the House has refused to give the Government the necessary money to carry on the business of the country, and to-night they are asking that we will agree to go into Committee of Supply. Only in this country and in France, among the great nations of Europe, could such a condition of affairs exist. The two National Liberal Cabinet Ministers now sitting on the Front Bench are committing a betrayal of all that Liberalism has stood for during the past 300 years by deciding absolutely to ignore the vote of last Wednesday. The Treasurer of the Household knows that that was no snap vote. It was agreed between the two sides that the Division should take place at or about 7.30. It actually took place at 7.45. There had been 116 minutes of speeches from Members who normally vote in the Opposition Lobby and 111 minutes from Members who normally support the Government. No truer division of time could have been made by the Chair between the two sides of the House. All the evening Members on this side were being implored by hon. Members opposite to give them pairs and, quite wisely, we were declining to do it. The Government must have known of the plight into which they were getting, and to suggest that this was some vote of irresponsible people who did not know what they were doing is to trifle with the facts of the case.
Let me give the names of the 12 Members who twice voted against the Government. There was the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Armagh (Sir W. Allen). He has been here since 1922. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) has been here since 1911. The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) has been here since 1919. [Interruption.] That was a mistake in the record which

she has taken the necessary steps to correct. The hon. Member for Bristol, North (Mr. Bernays) has been here since 1931. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Hexham (Colonel Clifton Brown) has been here off and on—more on than off—since 1918. There were the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Cartland) who, it is true, only came in in 1935, and the hon. Member for East Islington (Miss Cazalet) who came in 1931, but she has means of obtaining advice within the circle of her family which goes back a great deal earlier than 1931, and she has spoken this afternoon.
A man convinced against his will
Is of the same opinion still.
Apparently it is the same with women. The hon. Lady will be inconsistent enough to-day to vote against the opinion that she still holds. The hon. Member for Edinburgh Central (Mr. Guy) came in 1931, but the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Major Hills) has been here since 1906 with one short break, and he has been Financial Secretary to the Treasury. There were the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. Leckie) who has been here since 1931, the hon. Member for London University (Sir E. Graham-Little) who has been here since 1924, and the hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor). Can it be alleged that, after those 12 Members voted twice against the Government, the Government can claim still to retain the confidence of their own side of the House? They are not mere beardless boys. It is true that most of them are clean shaven, but the lack of hair on their chins is varied in a good many cases by a good deal of lack of hair on top of their heads. They are experienced Members of the House who well knew what they were doing. The suggestion that the Government can calmly ignore this vote, as if it did not matter, is a travesty of any reading of the British Constitution.
There is only one other Member to whose action I wish to allude, and that is the junior burgess for the Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn). On the night before the Division he was at a private meeting called in the House encouraging the ladies to go on. He spoke in the Debate. He supported them then. He voted for them on the first occasion, but he changed into the Government Lobby on the second. After all, his is a most important vote,


because the Under-Secretary for Home Affairs said on 26th February that the junior Burgess for Cambridge University is,
as not every one in the House will know, a very distinguished constitutional historian."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1936; col. 517, Vol. 309.]
That is his reading of the British Constitution. Did not he know what he was doing when he was giving the historic vote against Mr. Speaker leaving the Chair? Is he one of those people who were seduced from their duty to the Government by the blandishments of the Noble Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor)? It was a square and fair defeat on an issue on which Members felt deeply, and I hope that even now the Government will say that they will show more respect for the House than they have shown any indication of doing up to the moment. If not, let them not blame South Wales miners and other people who say that all talk of constitutional right and liberty is hot air and that the only way to get things in this country, as elsewhere, is to riot, and to take them by force. Despotism and dictatorship will have won a great victory if this House, one of the last refuges of constitutional government, allows the Government to get away with the proposals they have made.

9.27 p.m.

Sir J. SIMON: I will gladly wait for the contributions which other Members of the House may wish to make on the subject raised by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones). I had thought that we were going to devote a section of the time to this subject; but the lively and amusing speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down dealt almost exclusively with different matters, and for fear that other subjects are going to be raised I am going to say now what I have to say, especially as there is going to be another speech from this Box on the general subject of the Debate. The hon. Member for Caerphilly claimed that he was raising a serious matter, and I agree with him. Any question that is seriously raised about the administration of justice is always serious, and I do not complain that he has dealt with it as a serious question. At the same time it is important for the House to realise how extremely limited is the field which the

Government, the Home Secretary, or the Home Office occupies in this connection. Nothing could possibly be worse than that the executive should seek improperly to interfere in the course of judicial proceedings. There are countries where that does happen, but Heaven send it does not happen here.
This was a. trial before a High Court Judge at Assizes, and I certainly should be not only out of order but should be acting quite contrary to my impression and natural conviction if I were to suppose that something seriously and violently wrong had occurred. The hon. Member asked the question more generally. It is understood on all hands that there can be no question of any evidence being offered in a criminal trial about the record or the character of the person accused unless and until that person is convicted by the jury of a crime. There are many countries in Europe which adopt quite a different system, but let us preserve the system in which not a word can be said, although the police may know that a man has been. convicted 12 times or more, until a jury has heard evidence and decided whether or not he is guilty. I remember a story some years ago of a learned judge—I think a Lord Chief Justice—who was said to have been a little slow in making his own notes. He was listening to evidence given by the accused in the witness box in his own defence and he turned to him and said: "What was your last sentence?" The man said, "Five years' penal servitude, my Lord." The immediate result was that the trial had to be adjourned, the case put off and the whole thing tried again later after everybody had forgotten that unfortunate misunderstanding.
Now comes the question, how is the judge who has got to decide what the sentence is to be in a particular case to get the necessary information? In nearly every criminal charge the discretion of a. judge in awarding sentence is considerable. In this very case he bound some of the prisoners over and he sentenced others to months of imprisonment. If a judge is going to decide when the jury has convicted what the sentence ought to be in the individual case, he must do it on information. There is no other way. If the accused is a person who wishes to call evidence of good character he is entirely in his right in doing so, and


accused persons very often do. It is obvious to everybody that you could not have a man who is convicted getting the advantage of the rule that he may prove that his previous record is good if nobody is to be allowed to testify as to his previous record if it is not good.
My hon. Friend thinks—I do not agree—that the only statement to be made by a police witness is as to previous convictions. I do not take the view that that is the only thing the police can say. In this case 55 persons were convicted of what was beyond all question, if you accept the conclusions of the jury, a very serious riot in which people were marching in assemblies together, armed with sticks and stones and branches of trees, in which people's heads were cut open and people tried to get coping-stones from a bridge to put them in front of a train which was carrying miners to a pit. In a case of that sort obviously it is best for the judge to find out who are the ringleaders. Nobody can dispute that the ringleaders ought to be punished more severely than the followers. It will not be objected that if it is evidence to be directed to a matter of that sort it is evidence which ought not to be given. From the record I have it appears that was done. It is not the least the case that the police simply weighted the scales to get heavier punishment.
In the case of one of the people the police referred to one conviction which was a small matter and said, "But he bears a good character. He comes of respectable parents and his associates are respectable." In another case they went out of their way to say that the prisoner was a man who had not been observed by anybody other than as a good citizen. Obviously that is with the purpose of seeing that men are not unduly punished. In these circumstances it must be right for evidence to be given on matters of fact, subject to cross-examination, which may have the result of making the sentence not lighter but more heavy. I do not see how justice is to be administered unless the Court is given that information.
The evidence has got to be given in public. In my experience such evidence is always given on oath. I have heard it done many times. I can only say that I should be immensely surprised if it was

not. A policeman is like any other witness and has to answer the questions put to him. He has to tell the truth and be prepared to stand challenge in cross-examination. I am very glad to be able to clear away a misunderstanding, and to have the opportunity of stating it publicly. There can be no doubt whatever that, if a policeman, upon conviction and before sentence, is called upon to go into the witness-box and take the oath to tell the truth, and is asked questions about what the police have to say about the person convicted, if he makes a statement which is objected to or is contrary to fact in the view of the accused, there is not the slightest doubt that the accused has every right to challenge him.
In this particular case, which the hon. Gentleman, naturally, has taken up on behalf of his constituents with a desire to ventilate the matter and to get that which is fair laid down, I am informed that, after the evidence had been given, the Judge asked Mr. Trevor Hunter, K.C., who represented all the accused, if he had any questions to put to the inspector or whether he wished to address him. In two cases Mr. Hunter, I am informed, had something to say and he asked a question about one defendant—I will not give his name, but one of those to whom the hon. Member referred just now—and also about another one. In the case of one of them Mr. Hunter asked His Lordship to take into consideration the case of a man who was in no way connected with the dispute. He was not a colliery worker, but a baker employed at Trelewis, or somewhere. On a cursory study of the newspaper report, which gave me no right at all to pronounce an opinion, I did not get the impression that the police in this matter were acting other than I should judge perfectly fairly, and they really did their best to inform the judge, who had to determine the differential sentences of 55 people, which, to their knowledge, had been ringleaders leading others, and who were the people, on the other hand, who may be described as the sheep who merely follow the lead.
Now comes what is perhaps the real point of the observations of the hon. Gentleman. He raises the question as to evidence given of what are called political opinions. I wish to express my own view for what it is worth very


shortly. It is not an opinion which in any way claims to be authoritative. It is not the business of the Home Secretary or a Member of Parliament to lay down the limits within which evidence is to be given. But I express my ordinary commonsense point of view that political opinions in the ordinary sense have nothing to do with it. I do not believe that there is a judge on the bench, or responsible administrator of the law, who would ever permit unchallenged statements made by either a policeman or anybody else simply to give a man a black mark by saying that he belonged to a particular political party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I would suggest that hon. Members should have rather a better opinion than some of them seem to have of those who are trying honestly to administer justice. Policemen are entitled to a little sympathy, too, as well as those who are administering justice. I must in candour add that, if there be persons who take the view that the right way to secure what they want is to promote violent agitation—[An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Fascists"] I am going to give an instance in a moment. If there is a person who really thnks that, and if he says "You must not refer to that because that is my political opinion," I do not agree. As long as the police are only giving testimony of that which they know and are prepared to be cross-examined about, it seems to me to be perfectly proper for a policeman to say—to give a hypothetical case—"That man, my Lord, to my knowledge, has for years been advocating in my hearing, to a crowd of people he has gathered together who are disposed to follow him, violent conduct in complete disregard of the law." When I say that political opinions have nothing to do with it, it must be understood that that is the sense in which I mean it.
I heard somebody on the other side just now say something about Fascism. Let us see exactly how these things strike people when they look at them from the opposite angle. There was a Debate in the House the other day in which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) took part. It was a Debate about Jew-baiting. I was a little struck by a sentence which is in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. Referring to a man who was a Fascist, he said:

This man, who appears to be a leader of the local British Union of Fascists, seems to be … typical of certain prominent Fascist leaders…
The superintendent stated that on two occasions he had spoken to a prisoner warning him about the manner in which he had delivered speeches … about Jews.… Although the court knew he was that type of man, and although he has been in trouble more than once, all that the Police Court Magistrate did was to bind him oven"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1936,; 1604, Vol. 309.]
Observe how very differently these things strike you from the other angle, when the right hon. Gentleman was cheered by other hon. Members behind him. Do they take the view that it was improper to tell the magistrate after the man was convicted that he was a prominent Fascist leader or that the prisoner was a man who had been warned by the police about the manner in which he delivered speeches about the Jews? That was a perfectly relevant piece of evidence, and I should not think you ought to object to it if it happens to be from an angle to which hon. Gentlemen opposite take objection. They should listen to it all the way round.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Surely, that is an entirely different thing from the police coming forward and saying, "This man holds pernicious views."

Sir J. SIMON: I admit that, and I have not the slightest desire to defend anybody in any circumstances who merely testifies to political opinion. When I look at the record of this case as a whole, I am hound to say that the effect upon my mind is not that the police in this matter have acted other than perfectly fairly under the direction of a very distinguished judge who was most careful to suggest that counsel defending these men should have the opportunity if he wished to put any questions or make any challenge. The hon. Gentleman was not right when he said that none had previous convictions against them. They have; I will not say who they are.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Not one of the 10 to whom I referred.

Sir J. SIMON: I am afraid they are, but I will not pursue the matter now. I have shown—and I think it will be entirely in accordance with the general feeling of the House—that a policeman in this matter is not an executive officer.


The Home Office does not direct the course of justice. I will examine any details hon. Gentlemen wish to put before me. I only want to do in this matter what is right and what everybody in this House feels is right, but I really cannot accept on the record of this very serious case, involving the most shocking conduct which cannot possibly be approved by any hon. Gentleman in any part of the House, that the police acted otherwise than was right.

INTERNATIONAL SITUATION.

9.45 p.m.

Miss RATHBONE: I want to revert to the international question. I wish I had been fortunate enough to catch your eye before the Foreign Secretary made his reply, because I wanted to address a question to him. It is predominantly an economic question, and I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he replies will be good enough to deal with it. The Foreign Secretary repudiated with warmth the accusation that the Government had shown themselves deliberately half-hearted in dealing with Italian aggression in Abyssinia. To my mind his words carried considerable conviction, but when it came to the question of the particular form of pressure upon Italy which is occupying the minds of so many of us, namely oil sanctions, his reply seemed to be less convincing. Three reasons are put forward by different people why the League has not imposed oil sanctions upon Italy. One is the reason that was indicated by the Foreign Secretary, when he told us that at one period the Government took the view that the oil sanction ought to be imposed, but they yielded to the appeal of France for a further effort of concilation between the two parties at war.
There is a general impression in the country that the desire of France to bring about methods of conciliation between the parties was really only a cover for their desire to avoid the imposition of oil sanctions because they were likely to be effective, and that France wishes to retain the friendship of Italy so that she can have Italy on her side in the event of trouble with Germany. I suggest that France is now paying dearly for manoeuvring in the matter of

oil sanctions. I do not think that anyone who has followed the course of British opinion recently on the European situation can deny that the expressions. of sympathy with Germany and the irritation with France, which have found their fullest expression in the speeches of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George)—expressions which I deeply regret and which I think mischievous—have had their source in a feeling in the public mind that France in regard to Abyssinia has pursued a wholly selfish policy, and has shown herself anxious about the sanctity of treaties only when they concern the security of her own borders, and has been indifferent to her obligations in connection with the League. Nothing would so reassure public opinion in the matter of the Locarno Treaty and reconcile the public of this country to the fulfilment of their obligations under the Locarno Treaty than if, even at this late hour, the British Government and the French Government would combine in taking a strong line with Italy.
There has been another explanation why the Government have shrunk from the imposition of oil sanctions. That explanation was dealt with by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) and I think the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) put the matter even more plainly. They suggested that the oil sanction had not been imposed because it might lead to war. I wish we could get more clearly from those who speak with experience in these matters whether they seriously maintain that the imposition of oil sanctions on Italy, especially now, would actually lead to the declaration of war by Italy. When they threaten us with war, when they ask whether we mean war, we have a right to ask them which is really the greater risk—the risk of Italy going to war with Great Britain and with a united League (because nearly all the Mediterranean countries have given an assurance of their support if oil sanctions are imposed), or the risk of showing fear before a bully. In the European dispute, was not Germany encouraged in her action in the Rhineland by the feeling that she need not be afraid of the League, because if the League crumples up before Italy she is not likely to show a very firm front before Germany?
There is a third reason, which has not been touched upon and which is a matter upon which the House needs further explanation. We all know the serious impediment to the oil sanction caused by the attitude of the United States of America. Abnormal exports to Italy from the United States have been going on during the past two months. We all realise that that is a real danger. The Committee of Eighteen have reported that if America does not co-operate the result of the oil sanction would merely be to slow down and make more expensive the supply of oil to Italy. I do not think that anybody who has watched closely, as I have tried to do, the American attitude on neutrality in the past few months can deny that President Roosevelt and his administration in the autumn did show themselves keenly anxious to assure the League that they intended to remain true to the various assurances which they gave, for example, the assurance given by Secretary Hull to the League Co-ordination Committee, that the United States were
deeply interested in the prevention of war and hence the sanctity of treaties
and very desirous
not to contribute, to a prolongation of the war.
On the 30th October last the President warned the American people that
tempting trade opportunities may be offered to supply materials which would prolong the war
and expressed his belief that they would not
wish for increased profits that temporarily might be secured by greatly extending our trade in such materials; nor would they wish the struggles on the battlefield to be prolonged because of profits accruing to a comparatively small number of American citizens.
Not content with words, the Federal Government of America took strong steps to discourage abnormal oil exports, such as warning shipping lines which had received Government loans that the carrying of essential war materials, oil being expressly mentioned, was distinctly contrary to the policy of the Government. They threatened to foreclose a mortgage on a tanker about to sail with oil for Italy, and gave support of the Labour arbitrators to a strike of union labourers against a ship carrying war material to Italy. At that time President Roosevelt hoped to

strengthen the Neutrality Act, which would enable him to stop the export of oil beyond the normal peace time quantities. We all know that he failed to secure the strengthening of that Neutrality Act and that the American supply of oil to Italy has steadily increased, and had risen to nearly 1,000,000 barrels in December, from 75,000 barrels in the same month of the previous year. We know, too, that American opinion has since hardened towards isolationism and that the oil interests of the United States are doing their best, as all trade interests do if they are not sternly checked, to profiteer out of the war. Can it be denied that the fluctuations of League policy and the weak handling of Italy have greatly contributed towards this hardening of American opinion; have caused the frustration of President Roosevelt's endeavours and destroyed the short-lived prestige of the League which followed the speech of the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) at the League Assembly in September last. The Hoare-Laval proposals did a great deal to chill American opinion, and ever since then there has been a steady falling off in the attempts of the United States administration to check the abnormal exports of oil.
Nevertheless there is an immensely strong body of opinion in America which is sincerely anxious to avoid prolonging the war and which is passionately interested in peace, in spite of the aloofness of America from the activities of the League. Can we believe that this body of opinion is indifferent to what is happening to-day or indifferent to the fact that it is only by the use of oil, drawn mainly from American sources, that aeroplanes are able to rain down bombs and poisonous gas on helpless Abyssinian non-combatants? A large body of such opinion in America is as shocked and distressed as we are by the dreadful events of the last few months, but can we expect America to take any strong action in the matter so long as they know that the League has put on no oil embargo and that the Anglo-Iranian company itself, controlled largely by the British Government, is continuing to send its quota of oil to Italy? Suppose that even now the League were to take the risk of imposing an oil sanction and combined with this action a strong appeal


to the United States not to make their action of no avail, is it certain that the United States would turn a deaf ear? If so it would be a direct breach not only of the assurance given to the League Co-ordinating Committee but of the earlier assurance given by Mr. Norman Davis when the Kellogg Pact was under consideration who said that:
In the event that the States in conference determine that a State has been guilty of a breach of the peace in violation of its international obligations and take measures against the violator, then, if we concur in the judgment rendered as to the responsible and guilty party, we will refrain from any action tending to defeat such collective effort which the States may thus make to restore peace.
Can there be a clearer case for demanding from the United States an implementing of that double assurance? I realise the difficulty and delicacy of any appeal to America which might be interpreted as an endeavour to entangle the United States in European conflicts, but surely there must be some method of diplomatic representation, some method of arousing the conscience of a friendly and peace-loving people which might evade the difficulties. I want to ask whoever replies for the Government whether any negotiations at all have taken place between this Government or the Committee of Eighteen and the United States for the purpose of finding out what would be the action of America if we imposed an oil embargo, or if—even in default of an embargo—the British Government set an example by taking steps to put a stop to the export of oil by the Anglo-Iranian Company. If any Member of the Government or any other statesman of such an eminence that his words would carry across the ocean were to make an appeal to the American Government and the conscience of the American people I cannot believe it would be fruitless, although it may not have a result immediately. If the Abyssinian war is continued until the autumn there is still time to do a great deal to bring the conflict to an end if only the supply of oil to Italy can be stopped. The House has a right to know what the Government are doing in this matter. There is a deep feeling of cynicism in the country. They feel that as long as we are so lax in carrying out our obligations to Abyssinia, in spite of the brave words spoken in the autumn, there is very little hope for collective

security, and scepticism on that question is really darkening the whole European situation. Speaker after speaker has repeated that we must put our trust in a complete system of collective security. Here is a test case. If the League fails in this case how can we hope that it will succeed in a greater crisis?
Let me say one word on the relatively minor question which was the starting point of this Debate. I want to appeal to the Prime Minister to do something more to reassure the House that the decision twice deliberately expressed is not going to be set aside. I expressed doubt as to whether the method proposed in the Amendment of the hon. Lady was the best method of dealing with the question of equal pay in the Civil Service, but we received no assurance from the Prime Minister, and his speech to-day gave us no indication that the Government were going to do anything in the matter. I appeal to the Prime Minister to refer the question of the relation of men and women in the Civil Service to a committee to see if they can arrive at some solution which will meet the just claims of men and women for equal pay and will simultaneously have regard to the needs of men who have family responsibilities.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: We have had a typical Debate in this Parliament, typical in the sense that unlike most other Parliaments the Government find very few debaters to support their case. In my experience, which is not as long as many hon. Members, whenever the Government appear to be failing in strength there are always large platoons of supporters only too anxious to dash into the breach in support of the Government. That has been typical of all Governments, even coalition Governments, but this Government differs from all Governments, I believe I am right in saying within living memory, in that it finds it difficult among its own supporters to find people who can be articulate in defence of the Government they were sent here to support. The Debate to-day has been typical of the Debates we have had in this House, where the vast majority of speeches, from whatever quarter they come, are not enthusiastically in support of the Government. My right hon. Friend quoted one case after another when only one poor ewe lamb


rose to speak in support of the Government, and the Government are relying now on their numbers to get them out of all their difficulties.
Apart from the speech of the Home Secretary, which was on a special problem, there have really been two speeches which were of some help to the Government. The first was that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), who thrives on the plaudits of his political opponents on the other side, and whose great contribution to the Debate was to provide what might be called collateral security for the Government. The Foreign Secretary intervened and tried to put a little heart into the crestfallen back benches behind the Government Treasury Bench. His speech, like others of his speeches, was perhaps more notable for what he omitted to say than for what he said. I thought we were to have a chronological story day by day of the international situation during the last 15 months, but it suddenly stopped short at the end of May of last year. The right hon. Gentleman began by saying that from December, 1934, to April of last year the only question at issue was the Wal Wal incident, and that it was not before May that matters reached a situation of international importance owing to the movement of Italian troops to Italian colonies in Africa.
I would like to put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer a series of questions as to the events preceding May, when the matter became one of international importance. Is it not a fact that in February of last year it was announced, and I believe known generally, that two divisions, comprising 30,000 Italian troops, had been mobilised for service in Africa? At the time I think the Italian Government said that that action was only a precautionary measure. Is it not true that within a week of that announcement two battalions of Blackshirt Militia left Naples for East Africa? Is it not a fact that within three weeks from that time, towards the end of the first week in March, General Graziani and General de Bono were appointed to command the Italian troops in Africa? Is it not a fact that within a fortnight of that announcement, as a result of the continued dispatch of Italian troops to Africa and the delay in starting negotiations with regard to the Wal Wal inci-

dent, Abyssinia appealed to the League to investigate the dispute, which appeared likely to lead to a, serious situation? Abyssinia at that time stated that Italy was making military preparations.
I have asked certain questions to which I hope I shall receive an answer. Those military preparations had gone beyond the stage of preparations. The Negus felt that Ethiopia was imperilled, and he demanded full investigation of the situation by the League. From 11th to 14th April, nearly four weeks after Abyssinia had appealed to the League for action, during the time when Italian troops were still being despatched to the Italian colonies in Africa, there was the Stresa Conference. Is it not a fact that although the then Prime Minister, now the Lord President of the Council, and the then Foreign Secretary, now the Home Secretary, took with them their Abyssinian experts, they did not raise the question of the dispute, which was at least impending, between Italy and Ethiopia? A good deal depends on the answer to the question, which my hon. Friends on this side of the House would like to have, whether, in the light of the knowledge which they had of the international situation, it is a fact that the two representatives of His Majesty's Government meeting Signor Mussolini did not raise the question which was troubling Europe? Signor Mussolini has since said—if he has been wrongly reported we might have known, and if what he has said is untrue, then it ought to be so stated in this House to-night—that during the Stresa Conference—and I quote as my authority an interview in the "Morning Post," which I understand to be a highly respectable paper—he was prepared to reopen the question of the rectification of Italy's position in Abyssinia. Indeed, it was there that a joint resolution was drawn up which began with these words:
Representatives of the Governments of Italy, France and the United Kingdom, have examined at Stresa the general European situation.
Signor Mussolini has said that it was he who inserted in that resolution the word "European," in order to show that the African situation had been omitted. Is that right or is it wrong? I would not have raised this point to-night but for the intervention of the Foreign Secretary who


began a story, did not even read the whole of the opening chapters and very conveniently forgot to refer to the later chapters. A good deal happened after May to which no reference was made by the Foreign Secretary. This is only part and parcel of the thimble-rigging foreign policy of the Government. We are invited from day to day to guess under which thimble the pea is and nobody ever knows. The Foreign Secretary invites our attention to the League of Nations thimble while some other Minister, it may be the Secretary of State for War, who makes indiscreet speeches outside this House, invites us to find the pea under another thimble.
The Foreign Secretary's intervention interesting though it was, needs further exploration but that is not the only issue before the House to-night. The Prime Minister came down here and asked for a Vote of Confidence in the Government and to quote the words of the late Lord Asquith he left the House in "a state of inspissated gloom." [HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] I invite hon. Members to look up the late Lord Asquith's speech. The right hon. Gentleman in support of his contention that the House should give the Government a Vote of Confidence, confined his statement to the question of equal pay for equal work. If I may say so, that case had been equally well put by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on Wednesday last. The Prime Minister has really discovered this question for the first time. He had been supplied with a brief of trite—[HON. MEMBERS: "Tripe?"]—yes I agree with that, too—of trite and time-worn arguments which many of us on this side have been familiar with for the last 30 years and on the strength of that, the right hon. Gentleman asks for a Vote of Confidence. The Prime Minister knows that there is grave dissatisfaction with the Government's handling of affairs. It is because of their mishandling of the business of this House and because of their incoherent policy, that they are in this position. Ever since the Debate in this House on the Hoare-Laval discussions, the prestige of the Government has been steadily falling. Dejection is now the prevailing mood of hon. Members opposite. At least they show very little confidence in the Government which they were sent here to support.
I said at the beginning that this Parliament differs from other Parliaments which I have known in the fact that it lacks supporters who are prepared to be articulate. It suffers from this also, that Governments which have had a long and difficult time, towards the end of their term of office, feeling exhausted, like Micawber, wait for something to turn up. This Government, within five months of its re-election, has even passed that stage. Its supporters now sit supinely by, waiting for the Government to be turned down. There is hardly a single issue which has been before this House since the last General Election on which the Government could claim that it had the full and undivided support of its followers. On every big issue it has been subjected to heavy broadsides from the people who sit on that side of the House. On the biggest issues some of the most experienced Members of this House, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) on more than one occasion have taken the Government severely to task, and while hon. Members opposite have not shown any enthusiastic support of the Government in this Chamber, the Lobbies of this House have been murmuring with discontent. The Committee Corridor is regularly ringing with discontent, Conservative committees upstairs saying among themselves what they dare not tell their leaders down-stirs. Of course, there is this discontent, and it is a most astonishing situation in so short a time after a General Election.
The real charge that we are making to-day, the charge which was made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, is this ill-starred Government's incompetence and ineptitude both in the matter of policy and in the matter of the conduct of business. Whether its policy is right or wrong is not a matter for discussion by me at the moment, but it is important to know, as my right hon. Friend said earlier in the Debate, whether the Government is carrying out the will of the people and whether it is carrying out the will of the House of Commons. Hon. Members opposite are almost as gravely disturbed as are hon. Members of the Opposition. This Government is one over which is brooding a sense of impending doom.


The Government supporters by their attendance in the Division Lobbies have already proved that they are weary and disillusioned. On important matters of public business the House is lucky if half the Members vote. Government supporters have lost their zest. There is not the glint of battle in their eyes. There is a good deal of apprehension when a three line, underlined whip is sent out, but, apart from that, even the Patronage Secretary seems to be ignored. This is no disciplined army. It is a rabble. This, surely, is very bad for Parliamentary Government.
There is no real leadership in the House. Ever since the Hoare-Laval incident the Prime Minister has never shown the same confidence in this Chamber on any occasion when he has spoken. I say that in the knowledge of hon. Members opposite. They have talked about it when we have kept our mouths sealed. They are really no organised followers of the Government. Having shamefully shirked their responsibilities, they led the Government to a shameful and humiliating defeat last week. The Government have behind them a long trail of wasted opportunities, opportunities which are now familiar to Members of the House. We are voicing from these benches to-day what hon. Members would like to say about the Government and what many of them have expressed about them. I submit that no Government can carry on for long in those circumstances. On this occasion, when the Patronage Secretary has whipped up what the Prime Minister called his myrmidons, he will no doubt get his majority. It will not bring him great comfort, and it will not bring the Government any more comfort, for today has disclosed their inner weakness, the lack of enthusiastic support from their own Members.
In these circumstances, we would wish the House not to go into Committee of Supply to-day but instead, that the Government should do what they ought to have done in December, when the Prime Minister and his colleagues threw over one of their friends, and resign. I have no hope that they will resign. It may be that there will be other diplomatic resignations; one never knows; but I have no hope that to-night the Government will resign. I am satisfied, however, that as the weeks go by this feeling of dissatis-

faction with the Government will grow, because there is a feeling that the Government do not know their own mind, and that even if they did they have not the organisation in this House or the force of character to carry out the policy that they want. Even Opposition papers have been kind to this Government, but during the past week the most profound supporters of this Government in the Press have found serious cause for criticism. This Government will be destroyed, not by a minority in the House of Commons, but by a majority of public opinion outside.

10.31 p.m.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): Listening to the Debate to-day I have been reminded somewhat of a relay race. It began with equal pay for equal work; it went on to a discussion of the general record of the Government; then the race was handed over to, the runners on foreign affairs. After that the torch was handed back to a Welsh Member on the question of the administration of justice in Wales; once more it has come back to foreign affairs, and finally we have had the speech of the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), who barged about the whole field in his usual rumbustious fashion, without achieving any great success or defining clearly the points he wished to make, and without shedding any fresh illumination upon points that had been made before. A great part of the discussion has turned upon some very important aspects of foreign affairs, and a number of questions has been addressed to the Government, most of which were answered by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary at an earlier stage in the Debate.
I am not the Foreign Secretary, and it can, I think, hardly be expected that I should be fully equipped with a complete history of all the incidents which have characterised the progress of the Italo-Abyssinian dispute. But when the right hon. Member for Wakefield accused my right hon. Friend of having stopped short in his story at the important point, I think he forgot that on this occasion my right hon. Friend intervened only to answer those points which had been made in the discussion this afternoon, and that he has on other occasions given the fullest and the most complete answer to


the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman. I do not intend myself to go over the old story again, but for the benefit of those hon. Members who have already forgotten what took place on this subject last October I would refer the House to columns 213 and 214 in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 23rd October, 1935, in which hon. Members will find a very complete account by my right hon. Friend of what took place at Stresa, and why the discussions at Stresa did not include the question of the Abyssinian dispute.

Mr. COCKS: Not a convincing one.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That may be. I have no doubt that the hon. Member is very hard to convince; but let me say this, that if the Debate this afternoon has served, as I think it has, to bring out once more not only the difficulties but the dangers which are inseparable from a policy of collective security for the purpose of obtaining collective action by States of unequal size, of different views, of different degrees of armaments and, above all, running very different risks, it will indeed prove useful in educating public opinion, and in keeping under review the whole structure and condition of the League of Nations as it stands to-day.
The right hon. Gentleman was ungrateful towards the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) when he accused him of amusing himself by affording collateral security to the Government. Those who were present during the speech of the hon. Member will recollect that he began by saying that the leader of the Opposition had made the speech of his life to-day and had for the first time shown some signs of being able to present a case for an alternative Government of the country. It is true that after paying that compliment to the right hon. Gentleman the hon. Member went on to point out that, before the Opposition could go with any confidence to the country and ask for a mandate to represent them as the Government of the country, they must make clear where they stood on the question of peace and war. So apposite were his comments on this, that he was very soon engaged in quite a pretty quarrel with the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton). That was the heart of the whole Debate, for if one

thing has been made clear by the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair), it is that heir policy is simply a policy of bluff. What they urge the Government to do is to wave a revolver in the face of the aggressors, regardless of whether that revolver is loaded or not, and hope that the sight of it will be sufficient to deter them from their purpose. To do that is to mistake the character of the people with whom we have to deal. The right hon. Gentlemen think that they are to be turned from their purpose by mere bluff. Before we take risks of this kind we must be prepared for the consequences and we must see that our weapons are weapons that will shoot if they are required to do so.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Will they not?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman asks me whether they will not shoot. The weapons of which I am speaking are not merely the weapons of this country, they are the weapons of the League as a whole. It is fairly obvious from what has happened in the last 12 months that the League's weapons to-day will not shoot. Naturally, it is the habit of Oppositions to try to throw on the Government of the day the whole responsibility for international mistakes or misfortunes, but we, as a practical people, have to recognise that a policy of collective security is a collective matter. We must not allow ourselves to take upon ourselves alone the whole burden of collective security. We have to satisfy ourselves that others are not only willing, but able to play their part.
I want to answer one specific question which was put to me by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). He said that there was confusion in the minds of the public as to the attitude of the Government about Colonies and mandated territories, and he thought that the House was entitled to have a clear statement from the Government as to what the position was. I will try to satisfy my right hon. Friend. In the first place, let me point out that there is a clear distinction between Colonies and mandated territories. As far as I know, no one has ever asked or suggested that the British Empire should give up any of its Colonies, and I need


hardly say that, if any such demand were made, it could not possibly be entertained for a moment. Mandated territories are not Colonies; they are in a somewhat different category, and are only a part of the British Empire in what I may call a colloquial sense.
I think that perhaps there is some confusion as to the way in which these mandated territories were allocated in the first instance, and as to the manner in which it would be possible to alter the present arrangement. The mandated territories—territories formerly belonging to enemy Powers—were allocated by the principal Allied and Associated Powers, who voluntarily undertook a mandate from the League, and by Article 22 of the Covenant they are bound to render a report from time to time to the League as to their administration of these mandated territories. So far as I have been able to make out, it was not contemplated, at the time when these mandates were allocated, that there ever would be any change in the mandates. No provision is made for the transfer of a mandated territory from the original mandatory Power to any other Power, and I believe it may be taken that, in order to effect such a transfer, there would at least be required the assent of the mandatory Power, the assent of the Power to whom the territory was to be transferred, and. finally, the assent of the Council of the League of Nations. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the natives?"] I am not saying what is right or wrong; I am merely stating what I understand to be the position. The position of the Government upon this subject has already been made perfectly clear by the Colonial Secretary in answer to a question, when he said:
His Majesty's Government have not considered and are not considering the handing over of any British Colonies or territories held under mandate.
As to what might happen in the future, I think it would be unreasonable to ask me to predict the action of future Governments, but this I will say at any rate. Mandates are not held by this country alone. I cannot conceive that any Government would even discuss the question of the transfer of its own mandate quite irrespective of what will happen to the mandates held by other Governments. I would say, in addition to that, that we recognise that we have

definite obligations to the people who inhabit these territories and that we would not think of surrendering those obligations or handing those territories over to any other Power, even for the sake of obtaining that general peaceful settlement which all of us so much desire, unless we were satisfied that the interests of all sections of the populations inhabiting those territories were fully safeguarded.
I want to say a few words upon the question of equal pay for equal work in the Civil Service. I wish particularly to address my remarks to those Members who are deeply interested in this question and who sincerely believe that some injustice is created by the present position. Let sue say this to start off with. We could not introduce a system of equal pay for equal work into the Civil Service without completely destroying the principle upon which the remuneration of civil servants is based. That principle has been described as the fair wages principle. It has nothing whatever to do with the Fair Wages Clause, which is an entirely different matter. What one means by the fair wages principle is that the remuneration of civil servants should be roughly comparable with that enjoyed by men and women who are doing comparable work in outside industry. We place ourselves in the front rank of employers, but we do not place ourselves outside or beyond them, and that is the principle that has been endorsed by numerous committees and commissions which have gone into the subject in the past. If you are going to introduce equality of pay for equality of work, you depart from that principle, and, if equality is the principle which you wish to substitute for the principle under which we are working to-day, there is only one logical solution of it, and that is the one that has been advocated by the hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone). You must fix a new standard and you must supplement that by family allowances to those who have extra responsibilities. That is a system which has been adopted in a number of countries. But I warn hon. Members that that is not going to be a system which would satisfy those who are asking now for equal pay for equal work, because it would really mean a redistribution of the present rates of pay, which would benefit those who have


the responsibility of a family at the expense of those who have no such responsibility.
I want to say one word more on the question whether we are paying the women in our Civil Service adequate rates of remuneration. More than half the women in the common entry classes of the Civil Service are in the clerical class. They are recruited at the ages of 16 and 17, and rise by annual increments to a maximum of just under £5 a week. That is fully equal to, and even better than, the rates of remuneration generally paid to and gladly accepted by women with university degrees in outside industries. It cannot be said that we are not paying the women in the Civil Service adequately, or that we are not model employers in regard to rates of pay. It has been suggested that apart from the merits of this question of the pay of the Civil Service, the Government are not justified in, as it is said, disregarding a vote of the House of Commons and bringing into play their majority on a Vote of Confidence to reverse a decision already reached. I do not think it has been suggested by any one, not even the Leader of the Opposition, that the Government of the day is bound to implement any decision that may have been come to by the House. What the Leader of the Opposition rather said was that the Government should pay more respect to it, and go some way to meet the views that have been expressed.
If the matter the other day had proceeded further, and if the House had taken not one step, but both steps in the direction of accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson), perhaps there would have been something to be said for the point of view put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. But there were two votes, and the second vote reversed the first. The result was not the same as if the House had accepted the second question. As to the attitude of the Government, let me remind the House of one thing. The Government suffered a defeat on the first question. That defeat has been claimed by hon. Members opposite as the climax of a series of

incidents which they say has thoroughly discredited the Government in the House and in the country [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members cheer that, but do they not see that that makes it absolutely essential that the Government should challenge the House? How can we preserve our position in the world if we do not have the confidence of the House of Commons? The moment we suffered that defeat we were bound to challenge a Vote of Confidence in the House. In asking the House to-night to support the Government end to show that it has confidence in the Government, we are not really discussing the question of equal pay. This is a vote of confidence, a vote without which it would be impossible for the Government to carry on its work. I have not the slightest doubt that the supporters of the Government will rally loyally to us, and it is a ridiculous suggestion to make that we have lost the confidence of the country.

Mr. STEPHEN: What else can they do?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Gentleman did not hear the right hon. Gentleman opposite say a little while ago that this was no disciplined army. It is an independent House of Commons, and the time must come in the life of every House of Commons when Members are asked to make their choice, it may be, between some minor question upon which individual views may differ from those of the Government, or whether they would lose the Government which they were returned to support. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton was quite right when he said that the Opposition were not able to convince the country at the election that they could form a practical Government. Does anyone suggest that the country would have them to-day? We are asking not only for a Vote of Confidence in the Government, but also for a Vote of Censure upon the Opposition.

Question put, "That this House will, To-morrow, resolve itself into the Committee of Supply."

The House divided: Ayes, 361; Noes, 145.

Division No. 142.]
AYES.
[10.57 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Cruddas, Col. B.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Culverwell, C. T.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.


Albery, I. J.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.
Holmes, J. S.


Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W.
Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (E'kn'hd)
Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)
Hopkinson, A.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Davison, Sir W. H.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Dawson, Sir P.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir R. S.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
De Chair, S. S.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
De la Bère, R.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.


Apsley, Lord
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Assheton, R.
Denville, Alfred
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Hulbert, N. J.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Baldwin-Webb, Cot. J.
Dodd, J. S.
Hunter, T.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Donner, P. W.
Hurd, Sir P. A.


Baifour, Capt. H. H.(Isle of Thanot)
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.


Balniel, Lord
Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Jackson, Sir H.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Drews, C.
James, Wing-Commander, A. W.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Dugdale, Major T. L.
Keeling, E. H.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Duggan, H. J.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)


Beit, Sir A. L.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Blrchall, Sir J. D.
Dunglass, Lord
Kerr, J. G. (Scottish Universities)


Blair, Sir R.
Dunne, P. R. R.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.


Blaker, Sir R.
Eales, J. F.
Kirkpatrlck, W. M.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Eastwood, J. F.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Bossom, A. C.
Eckersley, P. T.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.


Boulton, W. W.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Latham, Sir P.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Edge, Sir W.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Leckle, J. A.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Ellis, Sir G.
Lees-Jones, J.


Bracken, B.
Emery, J. F.
Leigh, Sir J.


Brass, Sir W.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Levy, T.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Entwistle, C. F.
Lewis, O.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Everard, W. L.
Llddall, W. S.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Fildes, Sir H.
Llndsay, K. M.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Findlay, Sir E.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.


Bull, B. B.
Fleming, E. L.
Lloyd, G. W.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.


Burghley, Lord
Fraser, Capt. Sir I.
Lodor, Captain Hon. J. de V.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Loftus, P. C.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Furness, S. N.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Butler, R. A.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Lumley, Capt. L. R.


Butt, Sir A.
Ganzonl, Sir J.
Mabane, W. (Hudderstleld)


Caine, G. R. Hall-
Gibson, C. G.
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. Sir C. G.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Gledhlll, G.
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)


Carver, Major W. H.
Gluckstein, L. H.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)


Cary, R. A.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Goldie, N. B.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Goodman, Col. A. W.
McEwen, Capt. H. J. F.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Gower, Sir R. V.
McKle, J. H.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chlppenham)
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh
Granville, E. L.
Magnay, T.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br.W.)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Maltland, A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Mannlngham-Builer, Sir M.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Markham, S. F.


Christie, J. A.
Grimston, R. V.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Maxwell, S. A.


Clarke, F. E.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Clarry, Sir R. G.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)


Cobb, Sir C. S.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)
Mellor, Sir J, S. P. (Tamworth)


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir G. P.
Gulnness, T. L. E. B.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)


Colman, N. C. D.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Guy, J. C. M.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswlak)


Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hanbury, Sir C.
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff(W'st'r S.G'gs)
Hannah, I. C.
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.


Cooper, Rt. Hon. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Moreing, A. C.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Harbord, A.
Morgan, R. H.


Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Hartington, Marquess of
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)


Craddock, Sir R. H.
Harvey, G.
Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)


Cranborne, Viscount
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Critchley, A.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Morrison, W. S. (Cirenccster)


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Mulrhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Crooke, J. S.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Munro, P.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Hepworth, J.
Nall, Sir J.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.


Cross, R. H.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Nicolson, Hon. H, G.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Herbert, Captain S. (Abbey)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh







Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Tate, Mavis C.


Orr-Ewlng, I. L.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Palmer, G. E. H.
Salmon, Sir I.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Patrick, C. M.
Salt, E. W.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Peake. O.
Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Peat, C. U.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Penny, Sir G.
Sandys, E. D.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Perkins, W. R. D.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Touche, G. C.


Peters, Dr. S. J.
Scott, Lord William
Train, Sir J.


Petlierick, M.
Selley, H. R.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Shakespeare, G. H.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Pilkington, R.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Plugge, L. F.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Wakefield, W. W.


Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Porritt, R. W.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.
Wallace, Captain Euan


Pownall. Sir A. Asshcton
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Procter, Major H. A.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Ward, Irepe (Wallsend)


Radford, E. A.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Wardlaw-Mllne, Sir J. S.


Ralkes, H. V. A. M.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Warrender, Sir V.


Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Smithers, Sir W.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Ramsbotham, H.
Somerset, T.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Ramsden, Sir E.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Weddorburn, H. J. S.


Rankin, R.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wells, S. R.


Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, E.)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Reld, Captain A. Cunningham
Spens, W. P.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Reld, Sir D. D. (Down)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchln)


Reld, W. Allan (Derby)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Remer, J. R.
Storey, S.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Stourton, Hon. J. J.
Wise, A. R.


Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Ropner, Colonel L.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'nderry)
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wragg, H.


Rowlands, G.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.



Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Sutcliffe, H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Runclman, Rt. Hon. W.
Tasker, Sir R. I.
Captain Margesson and Sir James




Blindell.




NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Milner, Major J.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Montague, F.


Adams, D. (consett)
Gibbins, J.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Naylor, T. E.


Adamson, W. M.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Oliver, G. H.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Grenfell, D. R.
Paling, W.


Ammon, C. G.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Parker, H. J. H.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Parkinson, J. A.


Banfield, J. W.
Groves, T. E.
Pethick-Lawrence. F. W.


Barnes, A. J.
Hail, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Potts, J.


Batey, J.
Hardle, G. D.
Price, M. P.


Bellenger, F.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Pritt, D. N.


Benson, G.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Quibell, J. D.


Bevan, A.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Riley, B.


Broad, F. A.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Ritson, J.


Brooke, W.
Hicks, E. G.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Burke, W. A.
Holland, A.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Cape, T.
Hopkin, D.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Cassells, T.
Jagger, J.
Rowson, G.


Chater, D.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Salter, Dr. A.


Cluse, W. S.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Sanders, W. S.


Cocks, F. S.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Compton, J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sexton, T. M.


Cove, W. G.
Kelly, W. T.
Shinwell, E.


Crlpps. Hon. Sir Stafford
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Short, A.


Daggar, G.
Kirkwood, D.
Silverman, S. S.


Dalton, H.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Simpson, F. B.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lathan, G.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Day, H.
Lee, F.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Dobbie, W.
Leslie, J. R.
Smith, Bt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Ede, J. C.
Logan, D. G.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
McGhee, H. G.
Sorensen R. W.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Maclean, N.
Stephen, C.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Stewart, W J. (H'ghfn-le-Sp'ng)


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Foot, D. M.
Mander. G. le M.
Thorne, W.


Frankel, D.
Marklew, E.
Thurtle, E.


Gallacher, W.
Marshall, F.
Tinker, I. J.


Gardner, B. W.
Mathers, G.
Viant, S. P.


Garro-Jones, G. M.
Maxton, J.
Walkden, A. G.


George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Carn'vn)
Messer, F.
Walker, J.







Watkins, F. C.
Wilkinson, Ellen
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Watson, W. McL.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)
Woods, G. S. (Flnsbury)


Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Welsh, J. C.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)



Westwood, J.
Wilson. C. H. (Attercliffe)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Charleton.

Orders of the Day — GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 TO 1934.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to he made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Hassocks and District Gas Company, Limited, which was presented on the 17th day of March and published, be approved."—[Dr. Burgin.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Thirteen Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

Orders of the Day — ECCLESIASTICAL COMMITTEE.

In pursuance of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919 (9 and 10 Geo. V., c. 76, s. 2 (2)), Mr. SPEAKER has nominated Doctor James William Leech to serve for the duration of the present Parliament upon the Ecclesiastical Committee in the room of Major the Right honourable John Waller Hills, resigned.